J-S59041-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
TRENT MAURICE TRAMMELL, :
:
Appellant : No. 1243 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 7, 2012
in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0001343-2011
BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 23, 2014
Trent Maurice Trammell (Appellant) appeals nunc pro tunc from a
judgment of sentence entered after a jury convicted him of committing
multiple crimes, including robbery, possession of an instrument of crime,
and aggravated assault.1 We affirm.
The background underlying this matter can be summarized as follows.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with committing multiple crimes in
connection to the gunpoint robbery of Ashley Durnell and Lance Walston. A
jury convicted Appellant of committing those crimes. The trial court
sentenced Appellant on February 7, 2012. Appellant timely filed a post-
sentence motion, which the trial court denied on March 16, 2012.
1
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 3701(a)(1)(ii), 907(a), and 2702(a)(4), respectively.
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S59041-14
In July of 2012, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. In a per
curiam order, this Court quashed the appeal as untimely filed.
Commonwealth v. Trammell, 2036 EDA 2012; see Pa.R.A.P. 903(a)
(requiring a party to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the order from
which the appeal is taken). In that order, the Court also remanded the
matter, directing the trial court to appoint counsel for Appellant in order to
allow him to seek relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42
Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
On remand, the trial court appointed counsel, and counsel filed an
amended PCRA petition. In that petition, Appellant argued that trial counsel
was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal on Appel
Commonwealth apparently agreed with Appellant, and on March 31, 2014,
the trial court entered an order permitting Appellant to file a direct appeal
nunc pro tunc.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.2 The trial court directed
Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant subsequently filed
a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. In his brief to this Court, Appellant asks us
Commonwealth was sufficient to convict [] Appellant guilty of the crimes
2
In his notice of appeal, Appellant purported to appeal from the March 31,
2014, order granting him PCRA relief. Appellant, however, is appealing nunc
pro tunc from his judgment of sentence. We have corrected the caption
accordingly.
-2-
J-S59041-14
court answer omitted). The argument Appellant offers in support of this
issue is misguided and meritless.
Appellant begins his argument by presenting law regarding PCRA
at 4-5. However, this appeal has nothing to do with a PCRA proceeding;
sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue has nothing to do with the effectiveness of
trial counsel.
Next, Appellant highlights portions of testimony offered by Mr. Walston
Id.
trial, [Mr. Wal
preliminary hearing testimony wherein he stated [] Appellant was not the
person who robbed him. At trial, [Mr. Walston] testified that Appellant was
Id.
Lastly, Appellant makes the argument that follows.
The law regarding sufficiency of evidence states the test as
being when the evidence is reviewed was it sufficient to support
in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth.
The testimony of Mr. Walston cannot be considered reliable
because his preliminary hearing testimony was drastically
different from his trial testimony.
and he be granted a new trial.
Id. at 5-6 (citation omitted).
-3-
J-S59041-14
him as the perpetrator of the robbery and the related crimes, is unreliable
because Mr. Walston testified at the preliminary hearing that Appellant was
not the perpetrator of those crimes. As best we can discern, Appellant
renders the evidence presented by the Commonwealth at trial insufficient to
support all of his convictions. We disagree.
Our well-settled standard of review when evaluating a challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence mandates that we assess the
evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the
light most favorable to the verdict-winner. We must determine
whether there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact finder to
have found every element of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.
In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence
and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder. In
addition, we note that the facts and circumstances
established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every
possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a
-finder unless
the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter
of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the
combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain
its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial
evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire
record must be evaluated and all evidence actually
received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact
while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the
weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part
or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528, 532-33 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
-4-
J-S59041-14
At trial, Ms. Durnell identified Appellant as the person who, inter alia,
robbed her and Mr. Walston. Her testimony alone was sufficient to identify
Appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes.
At trial, Mr. Walston also identified Appellant as the perpetrator of the
-examined Mr. Walston
regarding the multiple inconsisten
and his preliminary hearing testimony. N.T., 12/13/2011, at 84-100.
testimony identifying Appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes, and we may
not substitute our judgment for that of the jury.
Appellant has failed to present this Court with an issue that warrants
relief. We, therefore, affirm his judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/23/2014
-5-