J. S20011/15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
ROBERT E. QUICK, : No. 554 WDA 2014
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, March 6, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No. CP-25-CR-0001668-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN AND WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED APRIL 15, 2015
Appellant, Robert E. Quick, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on March 6, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County.
Appointed counsel, John H. Moore, Esq., has filed a petition to withdraw
accompanied by an Anders brief.1 We grant counsel’s withdrawal petition
and affirm.
The facts of this matter, as aptly summarized by the trial court, are as
follows:
This case involves the murder of Aderian Page,
which occurred on February 22, 2013, inside
Appellant’s apartment. Police recovered the victim’s
body on February 28, 2013, in a yard near
Appellant’s apartment. N.T. Degree Hearing
(Day 1), 1/13/14, at 72. Police subsequently served
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v.
McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981).
J. S20011/15
a search warrant at Appellant’s residence and found
the victim’s blood on Appellant’s living room table
and clothing. Id., at 78-79, 85. After treating the
living room with Lumiscene,[Footnote 2] police
uncovered blood evidence in the center of the room,
drag marks across the floor and through the front
door, casting on a television and wall, and wipe
marks on a wall. Id., at 80-83. Police also
recovered a baseball bat with the victim’s blood on it
and paperwork indicating that Appellant was in
arrears on his financial obligations. Id., at 84-91.
[Footnote 2] Lumiscene is a substance
that emits a glow when it reacts to the
presence of blood. Id., at 79.
Trial court opinion, 7/8/14 at 1-2.
On January 8, 2014, appellant pled guilty to a general charge of
criminal homicide, possessing instruments of crime, theft by unlawful taking,
and abuse of corpse. In exchange for his plea, the Commonwealth
nolle prossed the charges of aggravated assault, recklessly endangering
another person, robbery, and tampering with evidence. Appellant admitted
to killing the victim by striking him multiple times about the head and body
with an aluminum baseball bat; unlawfully taking $500 from the victim;
removing the victim’s body from his apartment; disposing of the body in an
adjacent yard; and exposing the body to the outdoor elements. (See notes
of testimony, Plea, 1/8/14 at 6-7, 11-14, 15-17.) Appellant agreed that the
trial court would determine the degree of guilt for homicide, either first
degree or third degree, at a subsequent proceeding. (Id., at 21.)
-2-
J. S20011/15
On January 13, 2014, appellant’s degree of guilt hearing commenced;
and on January 14, 2014, the trial court found appellant guilty of
first-degree murder. On March 6, 2014, appellant was sentenced as follows:
a mandatory term of life imprisonment without parole at Count 1, first
degree murder; a concurrent term of 1 to 60 months’ imprisonment at
Count 4, possessing instruments of crime; a concurrent term of 6 to
60 months’ imprisonment at Count 5, theft by unlawful taking; and a
consecutive term of 1 to 24 months’ imprisonment at Count 8, abuse of
corpse. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on April 4, 2014.
Thereafter, counsel complied with the trial court’s order to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.,
Rule 1925(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A., and the trial court has filed an opinion.
Appellant has raised the following issue for this court’s review:
Whether there was insufficient evidence to find
Appellant guilty of First Degree Murder[?]
Appellant’s brief at 4.
Counsel having filed a petition to withdraw, we reiterate that “[w]hen
presented with an Anders brief, this court may not review the merits of the
underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.”
Commonwealth v. Daniels, 999 A.2d 590, 593 (Pa.Super. 2010), citing
Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa.Super. 2007)
(en banc) (citation omitted).
-3-
J. S20011/15
In order for counsel to withdraw from an appeal
pursuant to Anders, certain requirements must be
met, and counsel must:
(1) provide a summary of the procedural
history and facts, with citations to the
record;
(2) refer to anything in the record that
counsel believes arguably supports the
appeal;
(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the
appeal is frivolous; and
(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding
that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel
should articulate the relevant facts of
record, controlling case law, and/or
statutes on point that have led to the
conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.
Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009).
Upon review, we find that Attorney Moore has complied with all of the
above requirements. In addition, Attorney Moore served appellant a copy of
the Anders brief, and advised him of his right to proceed pro se or hire a
private attorney to raise any additional points he deemed worthy of this
court’s review. Appellant has not responded to counsel’s motion to
withdraw. As we find the requirements of Anders and Santiago are met,
we will proceed to the issue on appeal.
Our standard of review for sufficiency is clear. We
must determine whether the evidence admitted at
trial, and all reasonable inferences derived
therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, supports all
of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
-4-
J. S20011/15
doubt. Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426,
826 A.2d 831, 840 (2003). In making this
determination, we consider both direct and
circumstantial evidence, cognizant that
circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to
prove every element of an offense.
Commonwealth v. Gorby, 527 Pa. 98, 588 A.2d
902, 906 (1991). We may not substitute our own
judgment for the jury’s, as it is the fact finder’s
province to weigh the evidence, determine the
credibility of witnesses, and believe all, part, or none
of the evidence submitted. Commonwealth v.
Hawkins, 549 Pa. 352, 701 A.2d 492, 501 (1997).
Commonwealth v. Cooper, 941 A.2d 655, 662 (Pa. 2007).
Evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction of
first-degree murder where the Commonwealth
establishes that a human being was unlawfully killed,
that the person accused did the killing, and that the
accused acted with a specific intent to kill.
Commonwealth v. May, 584 Pa. 640, 887 A.2d
750, 753 (2005). An intentional killing is one that is
willful, deliberate, and premeditated. 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 2502(d).
Id. “Specific intent to kill can be proven where the defendant knowingly
applies deadly force to the person of another.” Commonwealth v.
Hawkins, 701 A.2d 492, 500 (Pa. 1997) (citation omitted), cert. denied,
523 U.S. 1083 (1998).
As previously stated, after entering a guilty plea to a general charge of
criminal homicide, appellant agreed that the trial court would determine
whether he committed first-degree or third-degree murder. As such, the
issue before the trial court was whether the Commonwealth’s evidence was
sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the accused acted with
-5-
J. S20011/15
malice and a specific intent to kill.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d
24, 37 (Pa. 2011). Appellant argues he only intended to drive the victim out
of his apartment. (Appellant’s brief at 7.)
Dr. Eric Vey, a forensic pathologist with the Erie County Coroner’s
Office, performed an autopsy of the victim on March 2, 2013. Dr. Vey
testified at the degree of guilt hearing regarding the injuries he observed.
Dr. Vey acknowledged there were five or six strikes with a baseball bat, with
a majority hitting the victim’s head. (Notes of testimony, Degree of Guilt
hearing, Day 1, 1/13/14 at 64.) In particular, Dr. Vey discussed two
lacerations to the back of the victim’s head caused by either one or two
blows from the baseball bat. Dr. Vey testified that while not fatal, those
blows definitely had a severe effect; i.e., either rendering the victim
unconscious, or at the very least, “woozy” from getting hit in the head. (Id.
at 21-22.) Dr. Vey concluded the victim’s cause of death was due to blunt
force trauma to the head. (Id. at 12.)
Appellant testified that he let the victim, his drug dealer, into his
house on the night in question. (Id. at 106.) Appellant stated that when he
admitted he owed another drug dealer $60, the victim walked up, pointed
his finger at appellant, and then with a fist “got [appellant] in the lip.” (Id.)
Appellant called the victim a “MF” and told him he should not hit his clients.
(Id.) According to appellant, he thought the victim may have a gun so
when the victim turned, appellant picked up the baseball bat. (Id. at
-6-
J. S20011/15
106-107.) Appellant stated he thought he would knock the victim out and
get him out of the house because appellant did not want his house trashed
and he was scared. (Id. at 107.) Appellant claimed to have hit the victim
once, but the victim “came at him like a football player.” (Id. at 109.)
When asked how many times he hit the victim, appellant stated: “I can’t
even answer that to be honest with you. It was so fast. It was like it was in
slow -- like a dream. I can’t even answer that for you.” (Id. at 109.) Later
in his testimony, appellant acknowledged that he hit the victim “at least
three times.” (Id. at 110.) Appellant admitted he never saw the victim pull
out a gun. (Id. at 109-110.)
Appellant’s own testimony is certainly damning in that he first struck
the victim after he turned away. See Commonwealth v. Cruz, 919 A.2d
279, 281 (Pa.Super. 2007) (finding that evidence that the defendant shot
the victim in the back with a firearm was sufficient to support an inference of
malice and specific intent to kill). The forensic evidence that indicated
appellant repeatedly struck the victim’s head with a baseball bat causing
numerous injuries was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that
appellant acted with malice and specific intent to kill. Commonwealth v.
Nichols, 692 A.2d 181 (Pa.Super. 1992) (finding that a baseball bat, when
swung at a victim’s head, constitutes a deadly weapon).
Instantly, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth, the evidence refutes appellant’s claim that he only intended
-7-
J. S20011/15
to knock the victim out, but rather inflicted a series of blows that ultimately
resulted in the victim’s death. Additionally, we observe the trial court did
not find appellant’s testimony credible. See trial court opinion, 7/8/14 at 6.
Having determined that the instant appeal is wholly frivolous, and,
after our own independent review, that there are no issues of arguable merit
apparent from the record, we will grant Attorney Moore’s petition to
withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence.
Petition to withdraw granted. Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/15/2015
-8-