J-S13003-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
WILLIAM THOMAS MILLENDER,
Appellant No. 1686 WDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 4, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-02-CR-0013237-2011
CP-02-CR-0015480-2011
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MUNDY, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 06, 2015
Appellant, William Thomas Millender, appeals from the judgment of
sentence of an aggregate term of 3½ to 7 years’ imprisonment, imposed
after he was convicted of various counts of robbery, conspiracy, receiving
stolen property and recklessly endangering another person.1 Appellant
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions and
alleges the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We affirm.
____________________________________________
1
Appellant was found guilty at CC Number 201115480 of one count each of
robbery (18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i)), conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c)),
receiving stolen property (18 Pa.C.S. § 3925(a)), and recklessly endangering
another person (18 Pa.C.S. § 2705). Furthermore, Appellant was found
guilty at CC Number 201113237 of one count of robbery (18 Pa.C.S. §
3701(a)(1)(i)) and one count of conspiracy (18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c)). CC Nos.
201115480 and 201113237 were joined by the trial court for trial.
J-S13003-15
Appellant’s convictions stemmed from two robberies that occurred
within approximately 7 hours of each other, involving the same co-
conspirators. Following a non-jury trial, Appellant was sentenced to the
above-stated term on September 4, 2013. He filed a timely notice of
appeal, followed by a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).2 Herein, Appellant presents two issues for
our review, which we summarize as follows: (1) Was the evidence sufficient
to support the conviction at CC Number 201113237, where the evidence
failed to establish that Appellant entered into any agreement to commit
robbery, or that he committed an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy,
but only that he was present at the scene and allegedly acquainted with the
perpetrator; and (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it denied
Appellant’s post-sentence motion, challenging the weight of the evidence, as
____________________________________________
2
The court entered an order on October 28, 2013, directing a statement of
matters complained of on appeal to be filed within 21 days pursuant to Rule
1925(b). Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement was filed on November 20,
2013, which appears on its face to be untimely. However, the trial court
does not acknowledge the untimeliness of the Rule 1925(b) statement.
Rather, the trial court treats the Rule 1925(b) statement as timely and
addresses the merits of the issues raised by Appellant in its Rule 1925(a)
opinion. We will, therefore, overlook the untimeliness of the Rule 1925(b)
statement and address the merits of the issues presented on appeal. See
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 39 A.3d 335, 340 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(“When counsel has filed an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement and the trial
court has addressed those issues we need not remand and may address the
merits of the issues presented.”).
-2-
J-S13003-15
the identifications of Appellant were so unreliable that they should not have
been afforded any weight? See Appellant’s Brief, at 6.
To begin, we note our standard of review of a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence:
In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must
determine whether the evidence admitted at trial, as well as all
reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light
most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all
elements of the offense. Commonwealth v. Moreno, 14 A.3d
133 (Pa. Super. 2011) Additionally, we may not reweigh the
evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact
finder. Commonwealth v. Hartzell, 988 A.2d 141 (Pa.Super.
2009). The evidence may be entirely circumstantial as long as it
links the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreno, supra at 136.
Commonwealth v. Koch, 39 A.3d 996, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2011).
Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support his
conviction of robbery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(v), which states: “A
person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he
physically takes or removes property from the person of another by force
however slight.” Additionally, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to sustain his conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery. A
conviction of criminal conspiracy requires proof “that the defendant (1)
entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another
person or persons, (2) with a shared criminal intent[,] and (3) an overt act
was done in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. McCall,
911 A.2d 992, 996 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Hennigan,
-3-
J-S13003-15
753 A.2d 245, 253 (Pa. Super. 2000)). “This overt act need not be
committed by the defendant; it need only be committed by a co-
conspirator.” Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Hennigan, 753 A.2d at
253.)
Before addressing whether the elements of the above-stated crimes
have been met, we review the facts of the incidents which led to Appellant’s
convictions, as set forth by the trial court in the following portion of its Rule
1925(a) opinion:
At trial, Mr. Landon Thomas testified that he was on the
way home from work when he was confronted by three men
near the Wilkinsburg bus way. One of the men pulled a gun and
demanded his phone. All three men pulled Mr. Thomas to the
side of a building, checked his wallet, and took change and his
transit, along with his cell phone. Mr. Thomas said he was
scared, as it was the first time ever that a gun was pulled on
him. Mr. Thomas also testified that his Oakland raiders hat was
taken, which he was wearing at the time…. The man with the
gun took it off [Mr. Thomas’] head and gave it to his accomplice.
The gunman put the gun in Mr. Thomas’ face and told him to
“get up the street before I shoot you in the face” as the three
men went toward the bus way. Mr. Thomas recognized the
phone depicted in a photo, Exhibit 9, as being the one taken
from him that night.
In photo Exhibit 7, Mr. [Thomas] identified the man who
was wearing his Raiders hat, who helped go through the process
of checking the victim’s pockets and ba[g]. Mr. [Thomas]
walked home after the robbery and called police, who responded
and took him to the crime scene, and later to the police station.
[Appellant] was identified as being the person who “assisted the
guy with the firearm[,”] and who was wearing the victim’s hat.
The Commonwealth next called Norman Beasley, [a
minister]… who testified that at approximately 4:00 a.m. on
September 30, 2011, he was in the area of East Liberty Circle
and Penn Avenue. He observed three young men cross the
-4-
J-S13003-15
street toward him, and he in turn, decided to cross the street to
get away from the[m]. Mr. Beasley was punched from behind in
a dark area of the street by a young man who then took [Mr.]
Beasley’s cell phone, which had fallen to the ground. Mr.
Beasley asked for his phone back, and then observed two (2)
other men standing near the entrance to a nearby Target store,
one of [whom] was [Appellant]. The man who took the phone
then ran toward [Appellant] and the other man at the Target
store and all three (3) took off together. Mr. Beasley flagged
down a passing police car and the officer placed him in his car
after [Mr.] Beasley related what happened earlier. The officer
drove toward a Giant Eagle grocery store where three (3)
individuals were confronted and apprehended. Mr. Beasley
confirmed that the three (3) men, one of whom was [Appellant],
were the same individuals who took his phone and ran from him.
Several hours later, Mr. Beasley’s phone was recovered from
underneath a car parked in a lot approximately fifty yards from
the Giant Eagle store where [Appellant] was apprehended earlier
that morning.
Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 10/20/14, at 3-5 (citations to the record
omitted).
The trial court also details the following evidence and stipulations
made by Appellant at trial that it considered in reaching its verdict:
At trial, the [c]ourt considered as evidence a video of the East
Bus Way Station in Wilkinsburg, identifying [Appellant], William
Millender, and two other individuals, Steven Wallace and
Roderick Cook getting on a westbound bus on September 29,
2011 between 9:08 p.m. and 9:22 p.m. [Appellant’s] counsel
stipulated to the identity of [Appellant]. Another stipulation was
reached that [Appellant] appeared in photos introduced as
Commonwealth exhibits 2 through 8. Another stipulation was
reached that City of Pittsburgh Police Officer Dominic Nino
recovered a pink Blackberry from the person of Steven Wallace
at approximately 4:30 a.m. on September 30, 2011 near Penn
Avenue in the Shadyside-East Liberty neighborhood.
TCO, at 3 (citations to the record omitted).
-5-
J-S13003-15
On appeal, Appellant solely challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to sustain his conspiracy conviction related to the robbery of Mr. Beasley.
Specifically, he avers that the Commonwealth failed to prove that “[he]
entered into an agreement to take [Mr.] Beasley’s cell phone, or commit an
overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy.” Appellant’s Brief, at 16. Appellant
further contends that he was merely present at the scene, and that mere
presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to establish conspiracy. Id.
“The Commonwealth is not required to establish the existence of a
conspiracy by direct proof of an explicit or formal agreement.”
Commonwealth v. Roux, 350 A.2d 867, 870 (Pa. 1976). “[W]hile more
than mere association must be shown, ‘[a] conspiracy may be inferentially
established by showing the relation, conduct or circumstances of the parties,
and the overt acts on the part of co-conspirators have uniformly been held
competent to prove that a corrupt confederation has in fact been formed….’”
Id. (quoting Commonwealth v. Horvath, 144 A.2d 489, 492 (Pa. Super.
1958)). Furthermore:
mere presence at the scene of a crime and knowledge of the
commission of criminal acts is not sufficient [to establish a
conspiracy]. Nor is flight from the scene of a crime, without
more, enough. However, such factors, combined with other
direct or circumstantial evidence, may provide sufficient
evidence sustaining [a conspiracy conviction].
In re V.C., 66 A.3d 341, 349-350 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing
Commonwealth v. Knox, 50 A.3d 749, 756 (Pa. Super. 2012)).
-6-
J-S13003-15
In the case at bar, we conclude that the totality of the evidence,
viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to
sustain Appellant’s convictions for robbery and conspiracy to commit
robbery. Although Appellant asserts that he was not an active participant in
the crime against Mr. Beasley, and that he was merely standing across the
street during the incident, Appellant did actively participate in the robbery of
Mr. Thomas. Appellant was identified as the man who searched through Mr.
Thomas’ pockets and bag. TCO, at 4. Appellant stipulated to his identity in a
bus station surveillance video near the scene of the robbery against Mr.
Thomas just minutes after the robbery took place. Id. at 3. In the video, he
was wearing the hat stolen from Mr. Thomas. Appellant was present at the
bus station with his co-conspirators, Mr. Wallace and Mr. Cook, and
Appellant remained with his co-conspirators hours later at the scene of the
robbery against Mr. Beasley. Id. at 3, 4. We especially emphasize the fact
that Mr. Beasley testified that after he was robbed by Appellant’s cohort,
Appellant fled the crime scene with Mr. Wallace and Mr. Cook. Id. at 4.
Additionally, when police apprehended Appellant and his co-conspirators
shortly after the Beasley robbery, Appellant was still wearing the Raiders hat
which had been taken from Mr. Thomas during the prior incident. Id. at 4, 5.
Taken as a whole, this evidence was sufficient to support the trial
court’s finding that Appellant entered into an agreement with Mr. Wallace
and Mr. Cook, that Appellant shared the criminal intent to rob Mr. Beasley,
and that an overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
-7-
J-S13003-15
Therefore, the trial court reasonably found that the elements of conspiracy
were met.
Moreover, once it has been found that an agreement was entered into
and that “the defendant intentionally entered into the agreement, that
defendant may be liable for the overt acts committed in furtherance of the
conspiracy regardless of which co-conspirator committed the act.”
Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228, 1238 (Pa. 2004) (citation
omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Figueroa, 859 A.2d 793, 798-799
(Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted) (“Even if a defendant did not act as a
principal in committing the underlying crime, . . . he is still criminally liable
for the actions of the co-conspirator taken in furtherance of the
conspiracy.”). Consequently, Mr. Beasley’s testimony that Appellant’s co-
conspirator took his cell phone after punching Mr. Beasley from behind
supports Appellant’s conviction for robbery.
Appellant next challenges the weight of the evidence to support his
convictions.
A claim alleging the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.
Accordingly, an appellate court reviews the exercise of the trial
court’s discretion; it does not answer for itself whether the
verdict was against the weight of the evidence. It is well settled
that the jury is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence
and to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and a new trial
based on a weight of the evidence claim is only warranted where
the jury’s verdict is so contrary to the evidence that it shocks
one’s sense of justice. In determining whether this standard has
been met, appellate review is limited to whether the trial judge’s
discretion was properly exercised, and relief will only be granted
-8-
J-S13003-15
where the facts and inferences of record disclose a palpable
abuse of discretion.
Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128, 1135-1136 (Pa. 2011) (citations
and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Appellant’s basis for his weight of the evidence claim is that
“[Mr.] Thomas’ only identification of [Appellant] was made for the first time
on the day of trial, when he was the only defendant in the courtroom sitting
next to defense counsel, and [Mr.] Thomas said he did not recognize
[Appellant] when they were face to face at the preliminary hearing.
Moreover, [Mr.] Beasley misidentified [Appellant] just minutes after the
incident.” Appellant’s Brief, at 24.
The trial court considered the testimony presented at trial and found
the testimony of the victims to be credible. TCO, at 5. “[O]n issues of
credibility and weight of the evidence, an appellate court defers to the
findings of the trial judge, who has had the opportunity to observe the
proceedings and demeanor of the witnesses.” Commonwealth v.
Cunningham, 805 A.2d 566, 572 (Pa. Super. 2002). The trial court, as fact
finder, concluded that the elements of robbery and conspiracy to commit
robbery were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that Appellant
committed these offenses. TCO, at 5. We ascertain no abuse of discretion in
the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s challenge to the weight of the evidence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-9-
J-S13003-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/6/2015
- 10 -
Circulated 03/12/2015 01:19 PM
Circulated 03/12/2015 01:19 PM
Circulated 03/12/2015 01:19 PM
Circulated 03/12/2015 01:19 PM