J-S52022-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RYAN WOODY,
Appellant No. 2094 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of August 22, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-CR-0014652-2013
BEFORE: SHOGAN, OLSON and WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2015
Appellant, Ryan Woody, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on August 22, 2014, following his bench trial convictions of two
counts of aggravated assault and one count each of criminal attempt
homicide, carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm by a
minor, and recklessly endangering another person.1 Upon review, we affirm.
The trial court set forth the facts of this case as follows:
At approximately midnight on July 4, 2013, [] victim,
[K.G.], heard someone yelling her name up to her bedroom
window. She recognized the voice and when she looked out
the window, she recognized the person. She said the
person was [Appellant]. He asked her to come downstairs
and let him into the apartment building door. She said,
‘no.’ He repeatedly kept calling her name. She told him to
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702, 901, 6106, 6110.1, and 2705, respectively.
J-S52022-15
quit calling her name and that was the end of it. She got
back into bed.
[K.G.] next came into contact with [Appellant] on July 6,
2013 at approximately 9:30 p[.]m[.], when he asked her if
she would give him a ride to Clairton. She told him she
would take him when she was done washing her car. After
about twenty (20) minutes, [Appellant] returned and was
ready to go to Clairton. [K.G.] had known [Appellant] by
his nickname ‘Rye’ for about a year or so. [K.G.] and
[Appellant] got into the car, she was driving towards
Clairton, making conversation with [Appellant] when he said
she went too far, he had to pick something up back there.
She turned her car around, went back, and he pointed to
the street, Lincoln Way. [K.G.] asked why he was going
there, nobody lived there in years.
As she drove onto Lincoln Way, she turned her car
around immediately because there is only one way in and
out. She sat inside[] her car for about fifteen (15) minutes
as [Appellant] went into a house. She could see him inside
the house flashing a light like a phone or something. She
did not see any other individuals in the house. As
[Appellant] walked out of the house, he was on his phone
saying to someone, ‘I left that there for you.’
[Appellant] was walking toward the driver’s side of the
car and the next thing [K.G.] knew was that he hit her in
the eye with a gun saying, ‘Bitch, I hate you.’ As soon as
he hit her, he started shooting at her. [K.G.] saw the barrel
of the gun pointed towards her. She was struck in her left
shoulder and her back. She heard two shots fired. She
immediately put the car’s gear into drive and took off as
fast as she could. She went into a gas station right down
the street. It was the Exxon located on State Route 837.
She was transported to Mercy Trauma Unit.
[K.G.], during trial, chose to show the [c]ourt the scars
located on her left shoulder and the middle of her back.
Later that same night, [K.G.] was interviewed by
Detective [Anthony] Perry. She indicated that she knew
who the person was that shot her. She was shown a photo
array. She did not feel the detective was being coercive or
-2-
J-S52022-15
suggestive in any way. She did not hesitate in any way
when she circled the individual in the number 1 position.
She signed the array and dated it July 7, 2013, adding 2:09
a.m., Shooter. She identified [Appellant] in the courtroom
on August 20, 2014 as being the person who shot her.
Detective [] Perry testified that he compiled a photo
array and showed it to [K.G.] []. She seemed clear-headed
at the time. Detective Perry stated she made no hesitation
whatsoever when she chose the individual in position 1,
[Appellant], from the photo array.
Detective Perry further testified he put together the
photo array using a system called the Commonwealth Photo
Imaging Network or CPIN – a database of photographs he
can draw from – and then placed [Appellant’s] photo in the
array with photos of seven other black males with similar
characteristics.
When Detective Perry went to Mercy Hospital to
interview [K.G.], on the date of the incident, he testified
again that based upon his experience as a police officer, she
was not under the influence of alcohol or any controlled
substances. Based upon his conversation with [K.G.], and
with the information she gave, he developed the suspect:
[Appellant].
Detective Perry completed a form and sent it to the
Pennsylvania State Police to determine if [Appellant] had a
valid license to carry a firearm in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. [Appellant] did not have a valid license to
carry a firearm and he was seventeen (17) at the time of
the incident.
Trial Court Opinion, 4/22/2015, at 3-6 (record citations omitted).
Procedurally, the case progressed as follows:
On August 20, 2014, [Appellant] proceeded to a non-jury
trial [before the Criminal Division of the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny Court]. At the conclusion of the trial on
August 21, 2014, [the trial c]ourt adjudicated [Appellant]
guilty of all charges. On August 21, 2014, [the trial c]ourt
sentenced [Appellant] with regard to [… c]riminal [a]ttempt,
-3-
J-S52022-15
to a period of incarceration of no less than [five] (5) years
and no more than ten (10) years, with a seven (7) year
period of probation [thereafter]. With regard to the
remaining counts, [the trial c]ourt imposed no further
penalty.
On or about August 27, 2014, [Appellant] filed [a p]ost
[s]entence [m]otion[] pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720. The
[m]otion contended that the [c]ourt’s verdict was against
the weight of the evidence.
On December 15, 2014, [the trial court denied Appellant’s
post-sentence motion].
Id. at 2 (record citations omitted). This timely appeal resulted.2
On appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for our review:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in affording
significant weight to the testimony of the complaining
witness, and thus finding [Appellant] guilty of all charges,
when that testimony was the only evidence connecting
[Appellant] to the events of July 6, 2013, and that
testimony was not credible and even contradicted by 911
call logs, cell phone records, medical records, and other
evidence?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Appellant argues his convictions are against the weight of the evidence
presented. He maintains that “[o]ther than the word of [K.G.], no forensic
evidence links [Appellant] to [K.G.’s] car or any firearms” and the
Commonwealth could have conducted a fingerprint analysis of [K.G.’s]
____________________________________________
2
On January 6, 2015, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant complied on January 8, 2015. The trial court issued an opinion
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on April 22, 2015.
-4-
J-S52022-15
vehicle, but did not. Id. at 12. He claims the trial court “abused its
discretion in affording so much weight to [K.G.’s] identification of [Appellant]
as her assailant” where the lighting was poor, she did not know if there was
another individual already inside the house Appellant entered, and she was
frantic and unfocused at the scene of the crime. Id. at 9. Further,
Appellant avers that his telephone records and the timing of [K.G.’s] 911 call
belied her testimony that Appellant was talking on his cellular phone to
another person immediately preceding the altercation. Id. at 9-10. Finally,
Appellant argues [K.G.’s] trial testimony was questionable because her
medical records suggest she was not struck in the face with a gun prior to
the shootings and that she was under the influence of alcohol on July 6,
2013, despite her protestations she was not. Id. at 10-11.
We review a weight of the evidence claim under the following legal
principles:
A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the
discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be
granted because of a mere conflict in the testimony[.]
Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that
notwithstanding all the facts, 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. It has often been
stated that a new trial should be awarded when the jury's
verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's
sense of justice and the award of a new trial is imperative
so that right may be given another opportunity to prevail.
An appellate court's standard of review when presented with
a weight of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard
of review applied by the trial court:
-5-
J-S52022-15
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the
exercise of discretion, not of the underlying question
of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. Because the trial judge has had the
opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented,
an appellate court will give the gravest consideration
to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial
judge when reviewing a trial court's determination
that the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence. One of the least assailable reasons for
granting or denying a new trial is the lower court's
conviction that the verdict was or was not against
the weight of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 758 (Pa. Super. 2014)
(internal citations, quotations and brackets omitted).
The trial court determined that K.G.’s identification of Appellant as her
assailant was credible because she: (1) knew Appellant and had previous
interactions with him; (2) identified him immediately from a photo array at
the hospital, and; (3) was unequivocal that Appellant was the shooter. Trial
Court Opinion, 4/22/2015, at 8.
Upon review of the record, we discern no abuse of discretion. The
verdict does not shock a sense of justice. K.G. knew Appellant, they were
alone at the time of the altercation, and she never wavered in naming
Appellant as her shooter. N.T., 8/20/2014, at 52-54, 57-59. The trial court
determined that the victim’s testimony regarding the amount of alcohol she
consumed and her statement that Appellant lodged a telephone call
immediately prior to the altercation were, at most, minor inconsistencies.
Ultimately, the trial court credited K.G.’s version of events and we will not
-6-
J-S52022-15
disturb that determination. Moreover, there was corroborating testimony
from police. Detective Timothy Langan processed the crime scene and
testified that he found bullet holes in K.G.’s vehicle that were consistent with
her gunshot wounds. Id. at 34. Detective Perry, who interviewed K.G. at
the hospital shortly after the incident, testified K.G. was clear-headed, did
not appear to be under the influence of alcohol, and chose Appellant from a
photo array with “no hesitation whatsoever.” Id. at 74-77. The record
simply does not support Appellant’s suggestion that another unknown
person perpetrated the crime. Accordingly, Appellant is not entitled to relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/9/2015
-7-