J-S02038-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
AHLEEM GREDIC
Appellant No. 313 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 16, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0001198-2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN, LAZARUS, and STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J. FILED MAY 24, 2016
Ahleem Gredic, Appellant, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered January 16, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County sentencing him to three and one-half to ten years’ incarceration.
Upon review, we affirm.
Following a waiver trial, Appellant was found guilty of possessing a
firearm with an altered manufacturer’s number, carrying a firearm without a
license, carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia, and possessing
an instrument of crime.1 On January 16, 2015, the trial court imposed an
aggregate sentence of three and one-half to ten years’ incarceration.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement as
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6110.2, 6106, 6108, and 907, respectively.
J-S02038-16
ordered by the trial court. The trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion
followed.
The factual background of this case, as found by the trial court, is as
follows:
On December 28, 2013, at about 11:50 p.m., Mr. Marquan
Hill was a guest at a party in the area of 62 nd and Wheeler
Streets when he accidently bumped Appellant and later
apologized[.] (N.T. 10/27/14, 9-11). Despite the apology
Appellant began arguing with Mr. Hill’s girlfriend, and threatened
to assault her[.] (N.T. 10/27/14, 9-11, 12). Mr. Hill intervened
and after he did so, Appellant warned it wasn’t over at which
time Appellant reached for a black gun located in the waistband
of his pants. (N.T. 10/27/14, 14 -15). Upon seeing the handle
of a gun, Appellant [sic] turned to walk away and heard a girl
yell, “He has a gun. He has a gun.”[2] (N.T. 10/27/14, 15, 22-
24). This unknown girl stopped Appellant from fully removing
the gun from his waistband. (N.T. 10/27/14,14-15, 28-30).
Following the encounter, Mr. Hill left the party. As he was
walking on the street, a car pulled up next to him, (N.T.
10/27/14, 24) and someone with a gun jumped out of the car
and began chasing Mr. Hill. (N.T. 10/27/14, 25-26). Mr. Hill
began running and as he did so he passed a police station where
he was stopped by a police officer who asked him why he was
running. (N.T. 10/27/14, 26). Mr. Hill told the officer about the
incident and provided a description of the Appellant. (N.T.
10/27/14, 26-27). Although Mr. Hill expressed that he did not
want to do so, the police placed Mr. Hill and his girlfriend in a
police car and drove them around the neighborhood. (N.T.
10/27/-14, 27-28). While in the police car, Mr. Hill observed
police placing Appellant under arrest. (N.T. 10/27/14, 28).
____________________________________________
2
We believe this is a typo, not an incorrect recitation of the facts. At the
referenced point in the transcript, Mr. Hill saw the handle of a gun on
Appellant’s hip, and then Mr. Hill, not Appellant, turned to walk away.
-2-
J-S02038-16
Police thereafter interviewed Mr. Hill. During the
interview, he identified a gun depicted in a photograph as the
firearm he saw in Appellant’s possession at the party based on
the weapon’s grip. (N.T. 10/27/14, 31-33).
Philadelphia Police Officer Marc Marchetti was standing
outside the 12th District Police Station when Mr. Hill ran up to
him and said that there was guy chasing him with a gun. (N.T,
10/29/14, 5-6). Mr. Hill described Appellant and Officer
Marchetti and his partner placed Mr. Hill and his girlfriend into a
police car and drove to the location of the party. (N.T.
10/29/14, 5-6). Upon arrival Officer Marchetti identified
Appellant from the description given by Mr. Hill. (N.T.
10/27/14, 6). Upon approach, Appellant fled northbound on 65 th
Street after Officer Marchetti asked him not to run. Officer
Marchetti’s partner pursued Appellant on foot as Officer
Marchetti drove after Appellant. (N.T. 10/29/14, 6-7).
Appellant was apprehended soon thereafter at which time Mr.
Hill identified Appellant. Id.
When the frisk of Appellant did not yield a firearm, Officer
Marchetti traced the route taken by Appellant during his flight.
(N.T. 10/29/14, 11). An unidentified neighbor told the officer
that a handgun was sitting atop a tire of a vehicle parked on the
street at which time it was recovered. (N.T, 10/29/14, 11).
Philadelphia Police Detective Robert Daly, who was
assigned to investigate the incident, went to the location where
the gun was found by Officer Marchetti, (N,T. 10/29/14, 28). He
recovered the gun after photographing it. Upon examination, he
observed that the weapon’s serial number had been obliterated
and that it was loaded with one live round. (N.T. 10/29/14, 28,
30-31). A subsequent examination of the weapon indicated that
the weapon was operable. (N.T. 10/29/14, 33).
In his defense, Appellant introduced evidence by way of
stipulation indicating that Officer Marchetti’s partner did not
witness Appellant discard anything during the pursuit and that
DNA and fingerprint analyses did not definitively connect the gun
to Appellant. (N.T. 10/29/14, 34-35).
T.C.O., 5/24/15, 2-3.
On appeal, Appellant presents one issue for our review.
-3-
J-S02038-16
Where the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant
transported a gun he allegedly possessed inside a private
dwelling to the location on a public street where a gun was later
found (in other words, that the found gun was the same gun that
the defendant allegedly earlier possessed), was not the evidence
insufficient to prove that the defendant carried a firearm on a
public street or property in Philadelphia in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.
§ 6108, and was not the evidence also insufficient to prove that
the defendant possessed a firearm with an altered
manufacturer’s number in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6110.2?
Appellant’s Brief at 3. Stated otherwise, Appellant challenges the sufficiency
of the evidence to convict him of carrying a firearm on a public street in
Philadelphia and possessing a firearm with an altered manufacturer’s
number because the evidence does not support a finding that the gun found
on the street was placed there by Appellant.
Our standard of review on sufficiency of evidence claims is well-
settled:
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of
the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence
admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the
verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable
the fact-finder to find 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 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
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. The
Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving
every element of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence.
-4-
J-S02038-16
Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire
record must be evaluated and all evidence actually
received must be considered. Finally, the [finder] 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. Fabian, 60 A.3d 146, 150 -151 (Pa. Super. 2013)
(citation omitted), appeal denied, 69 A.3d 600 (Pa. 2013). Moreover, “[t]his
standard of deference is not altered in cases involving a bench trial, because
the province of a trial judge sitting without a jury is to do what a jury is
required to do.” Commonwealth v. Lee, 956 A.2d 1024, 1027 (Pa. Super,
2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), appeal denied, 964
A.2d 894 (Pa. 2009).
In disposing of Appellant’s sufficiency claims, the trial court provided
the following analysis:
Instantly, the credible evidence presented at the trial
shows that Appellant displayed the handle of the gun to [Mr. Hill]
who thereafter left the party. Later, Mr. Hill lodged a complaint
with the police who then drove him around the neighborhood in
search of, inter alia, Appellant. When Appellant was spotted by
the police, he fled after being asked by the police not to do so.
Subsequent thereto, police recovered a firearm along the route
Appellant fled which [Mr. Hill] identified as the weapon he had
earlier seen in Appellant’s possession at the party.
This evidence was more than sufficient to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the gun seized by police was the same
one observed earlier by [Mr. Hill] and that Appellant possessed it
on a public street. [Mr. Hill’s] identification of the gun coupled
with Appellant’s flight was sufficient to establish that he placed
the gun on top of the tire where police found it. See
Commonwealth v, Lopez, 57 A.3d 74,-80 (Pa. Super. 2012)
("The Commonwealth may sustain its burden by means of wholly
circumstantial evidence and the fact that the evidence
-5-
J-S02038-16
establishing a defendant's participation in a crime is
circumstantial does not preclude a conviction where the
evidence, coupled with the reasonable inferences drawn
therefrom, overcomes the presumption of innocence.") (citations
omitted); Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910 (Pa.
Super. 2000) (circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support
the reasonable inference that appellant traveled at least some
distance on a public street with gun). See also Commonwealth
v. Pestinikas, 617 A.2d 1339, 1347 -1348 (Pa. Super. 1992)
(holding that it is well -settled that any attempt by a defendant
to flee or "otherwise engage in conduct designed to avoid
apprehension or prosecution" may "form a basis from which guilt
may be inferred.").
T.C.O., 6/24/15, at 10. We agree with the trial court that the evidence at
trial, viewed in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict
winner, supports Appellant’s convictions for carrying a firearm on a public
street in Philadelphia and possessing a firearm with an altered
manufacturer’s number. The evidence considered by the trial court supports
the findings that the gun Appellant displayed to Hill at the party was in fact
the same gun recovered on the street along the same route taken by
Appellant immediately after Appellant fled from the police. Appellant’s
sufficiency claims fail.
While raising sufficiency claims, we note that many of Appellant’s
arguments take issue with credibility determinations and weight assigned
evidence by the trial court. Appellant claims that “the evidence
overwhelmingly rebutted the conclusion that the gun the defendant allegedly
earlier possessed was the same gun subsequently found in the wheel well of
a vehicle on the street.” Appellant’s Brief at 9. Appellant argues that Mr.
-6-
J-S02038-16
Hill never saw the entire gun and, while he based his identification of the
weapon on its grip alone, Mr. Hill never mentioned the “distinctive” silver
strip on the grip. Appellant’s Brief at 9, 14. Appellant further argues that,
although two officers pursued Appellant, neither of them saw Appellant
discard anything and it “seems likely” that the officer pursuing Appellant on
foot never lost sight of Appellant. Appellant’s Brief at 14. Additionally,
Appellant alleges that the fact that no fingerprint or DNA evidence
discovered on the found weapon supports the theory that the weapon
belonged to the other male with a weapon reported to be in the same
location as Appellant that evening. Appellant’s Brief at 15-16. The weight
assigned evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe
all, part, or none of the evidence, and to determine the credibility of the
witnesses. Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666 (Pa. 1999). As an
appellate court, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the fact-
finder. Id. In fact, we may only reverse a verdict if it is so contrary to the
evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice. Id. Since we do not find that to
be the case here, we affirm the Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-7-
J-S02038-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/24/2016
-8-