J-S14031-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
SHYKIR CREW, :
:
Appellant : No. 1979 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered on June 20, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, No. CP-51-CR-0002711-2012
BEFORE: DONOHUE, OLSON and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED MARCH 09, 2015
Shykir Crew (“Crew”) appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
following his conviction of robbery, aggravated assault, carrying a loaded
firearm in Philadelphia, possession of a firearm by a minor, and possession
of an instrument of crime.1 We affirm.
During the evening of June 23, 2011, Crew approached the victim, Eric
Johnson (“Johnson”), who had just parked his vehicle on the 5300 block of
Girard Avenue in Philadelphia. From a distance of about two and one-half
feet, Crew pointed a gun at Johnson’s head and stated, “Give it up, old
head.” Johnson recognized Crew as the son of his neighbor, Sakina Crew
(“Ms. Crew”). Johnson tried to wrestle the gun from Crew. Upon regaining
control of the firearm, Crew shot Johnson and then fled.
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701, 2702, 6108, 6110, 907.
J-S14031-15
At the hospital, Johnson identified the perpetrator as the teenage son
of Ms. Crew. Johnson described his assailant as a 5’4” black male of about
130 pounds. Johnson told police that Crew lives at 5312 Poplar Street in
Philadelphia. Later that day, Johnson positively identified Crew from
photographs provided by police officers. Ultimately, Crew was arrested.
A jury subsequently convicted Crew of the above-described charges.
The trial court sentenced Crew to an aggregate prison term of 16 years, 10
months, to 47 years. Crew filed a post-sentence Motion, which the trial
court denied. Thereafter, Crew filed the instant timely appeal.
Crew presents the following claim for our review:
Was the evidence insufficient to find [Crew] guilty of the offense
of aggravated assault as a first[-]degree felony because the
mens rea element of this offense was not proved beyond a
reasonable doubt?
Brief for Appellant at 2.
Crew challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his
conviction of aggravated assault as a first-degree felony. Id. at 6. Crew
asserts that there was no showing that he acted intentionally, knowingly or
recklessly, under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the
value of human life. Id. According to Crew, “the evidence showed that the
incident was a robbery gone bad[,]” where the victim was shot once after an
altercation over the gun. Id. Crew argues that, although the
Commonwealth might have established the intent necessary for robbery, it
did not prove the necessary intent to establish aggravated assault. Id.
-2-
J-S14031-15
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence under the
following, well-settled standard of review:
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presents a
question of law. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308, 744
A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000). We must determine “whether the
evidence is sufficient to prove every element of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hughes, 521
Pa. 423, 555 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. 1989). We “must view
evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as
the verdict winner, and accept as true all evidence and all
reasonable inferences therefrom upon which, if believed, the fact
finder properly could have based its verdict.” Id.
Our Supreme Court has instructed that
the facts and circumstances established by the
Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of
innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt may
be resolved by the fact-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. 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. Thomas, 65 A.3d 939, 943 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation
omitted).
The Crimes Code defines the crime of aggravated assault as follows:
(a) Offense defined.—A person is guilty of aggravated assault
if he:
(1) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or
causes such injury intentionally, knowingly or recklessly
under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the
value of human life[.]
-3-
J-S14031-15
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2702(a)(1).
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Crew’s claim and concluded
that it lacks merit. Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/14, at 3-13. Upon review, we
agree with the sound reasoning of the trial court, as expressed in its
Opinion, and affirm on this basis. See id.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/9/2015
-4-
Com. v. Crew, S.
Combined Opinion