J-S70009-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
BRIAN P. MCKEOWN,
Appellant No. 1186 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of April 10, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006301-2014
and CP-51-CR-0006302-2014
BEFORE: OLSON, OTT and MUSMANNO, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 02, 2016
Appellant, Brian P. McKeown, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered on April 10, 2015. We affirm.
The factual background and procedural history of this case is as
follows.1 On March 23, 2014, at approximately 1:45 p.m., Appellant and his
son attempted to burglarize a residence on Nautilus Road in Philadelphia.
Appellant broke the lock on the back door of the residence with a hammer
and then fled the scene. On June 9, 2014, Appellant was charged via
1
Appellant’s notice of appeal included both docket numbers CP-51-CR-
0006301-2014 and CP-51-CR-0006302-2014. In his brief, however,
Appellant indicates that he is only challenging his convictions from docket
number CP-51-CR-0006302-2014. See Appellant’s Brief at 16. Accordingly,
we only discuss the factual background and procedural history of the
convictions from that docket number.
J-S70009-16
criminal information with attempted burglary,2 attempted trespass,3
conspiracy to commit burglary,4 criminal mischief,5 and possessing an
instrument of crime.6 On January 15, 2015, Appellant proceeded to a bench
trial and was found guilty of all five charges. On April 10, 2015, Appellant
was sentenced to an aggregate term of three to six years’ imprisonment.
This timely appeal followed. Appellant presents one issue for our review,
“Was the evidence insufficient to convict Appellant?” Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Appellant’s lone issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence.
“Whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict is a question of
law; our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”
Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 792 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal
denied, 119 A.3d 351 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted). “When reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence, this Court is tasked with determining whether
the evidence at trial, and all reasonable inferences derived therefrom, are
sufficient to establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth[.]”
Commonwealth v. Haney, 131 A.3d 24, 33 (Pa. 2015) (citation omitted).
2
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901, 3502.
3
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 901(a), 3503.
4
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 903, 3502.
5
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3304(a)(2).
6
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a)
-2-
J-S70009-16
“The evidence need not preclude every possibility of innocence and the fact-
finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented.”
Commonwealth v. Coleman, 130 A.3d 38, 41 (Pa. Super. 2015) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to link him to the
attempted burglary on Nautilus Road. He contends that he and his son were
knocking on doors in the neighborhood seeking work. Appellant cites
Commonwealth v. Stanley, 309 A.2d 408 (Pa. 1973), for the proposition
that evidence of a broken door lock is insufficient to find a defendant guilty
of attempted burglary. The Commonwealth, however, presented sufficient
evidence tying Appellant to the attempted burglary. At trial, James Norton,
a neighbor, testified that he witnessed Appellant and his son attempting to
burglarize the residence. N.T., 1/15/15, at 15. This Court has held that
eyewitness identification of a defendant is sufficient to prove a defendant
was the perpetrator of an offense. See Commonwealth v. Kendricks, 30
A.3d 499, 509 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 46 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2012).
Appellant’s argument goes to the weight of the evidence, not its sufficiency.
See Commonwealth v. Brewington, 740 A.2d 247, 251 (Pa. Super.
1999), appeal denied, 758 A.2d 660 (Pa. 2000). Accordingly, there was
sufficient evidence to convict Appellant.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-3-
J-S70009-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/2/2016
-4-