J-S45045-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
SAMEER MITCHELL-WILLIAMS, :
:
Appellant : No. 3394 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgement of Sentence June 9, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002268-2015
CP-51-CR-0002278-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 07, 2017
Sameer Mitchell-Williams (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of
sentence imposed on his conviction for, inter alia, firearms not to be carried
without a license. On appeal, Appellant claims that there was insufficient
evidence to support his conviction for the above-mentioned crime because
the trial court erred in admitting into evidence his own statements to the
police in violation of the corpus delicti rule. We disagree and affirm
Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
The trial court ably summarized the factual history of this case.
[During Appellant’s non-jury trial for the aforementioned
charges,] Detective Grace testified that on January 15, 2015, he
was conducting an investigation into a shooting in the vicinity of
10th and Olney Streets. In the course of that investigation he
went to the hospital to interview [Appellant] who was believed to
be the victim of a shooting.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S45045-17
[Appellant] had a gunshot wound to his leg.
[Appellant] gave an interview to Detective Grace, wherein
[Appellant] described being accosted by men. [Appellant] stated
that he was in possession of a gun during the incident which was
tucked into the front of his waist. [Appellant] further
acknowledged that he did not have a permit to carry a gun.
[Appellant] stated that his gun, which he had owned for about
two years, was a black, .40 caliber Smith and Wesson, which the
men took from him during the incident. [Appellant] reviewed
and signed the statement. [Appellant] did not have a valid
license to carry a firearm.
Detectives obtained a search warrant for [Appellant’s]
address. During execution of that warrant, police recovered
from a second floor rear bedroom $530 in United States
[c]urrency [] from under the mattress, two clear plastic bags
containing a total of 4.9 grams of marijuana, three digital scales,
[Appellant’s] identification and a box of Remington [.]40-caliber
ammunition, containing nine live [.]40-caliber rounds and a case
of new, unused green plastic containers with lids.
… [Another police officer, testifying as an expert,]
rendered the opinion that the marijuana was possessed with
intent to deliver. …
[Appellant] testified that he did not own a gun and did not
have a gun at the time of the incident during which he was shot.
He further testified that the box of ammunition was the remains
of a box purchased for use at a firing range where he would rent
a gun for practice. [Appellant] testified that the portions of the
[written] statement [signed by Appellant and introduced by the
Commonwealth] regarding possession of a gun were made up by
Detective Grace, and that pages 1-2 containing those portions
were never shown to [Appellant] before he signed the third
page.
Trial Court Opinion, 1/19/2017, at 3-4 (internal citations omitted).
At the conclusion of Appellant’s non-jury trial on April 1, 2016, the trial
court found Appellant guilty of possession with intent to deliver controlled
-2-
J-S45045-17
substances, possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug
paraphernalia, firearms not to be carried without a license, and carrying
firearms in public in Philadelphia. On June 9, 2016, Appellant was sentenced
to concurrent terms of one-and-one-half to five years of incarceration each
for possession with intent to deliver controlled substances, firearms not to
be carried without a license, and carrying firearms in public in Philadelphia.
His conviction for a possession of controlled substance merged for purposes
of sentencing, and no further penalty was imposed for possession of drug
paraphernalia.
Appellant’s post-sentence motion was denied by the trial court on
October 12, 2016. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial court
filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), noting that Appellant failed to
file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule
1925(b) as ordered by the court. Appellant subsequently filed a concise
statement, which was accepted by the trial court nunc pro tunc.
On appeal, Appellant asks this Court to determine whether the
Commonwealth proved that Appellant possessed an unlicensed firearm
beyond a reasonable doubt with admissible evidence. Appellant’s Brief at 5.
Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to prove the elements of
firearms not to be carried without a license because it did not present
independent evidence of the crime outside of his statement to Detective
-3-
J-S45045-17
Grace, which, according to Appellant, should not have been admitted due to
the corpus delicti rule. Appellant’s Brief at 9.
We begin with our standard of review regarding sufficiency of the
evidence.
[O]ur standard of review of sufficiency claims requires that we
evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the verdict
winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable
inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Evidence will be
deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each
material element of the crime charged and the commission
thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a
mathematical certainty. Any doubt about the defendant’s guilt is
to be resolved by the fact finder unless the evidence is so weak
and inconclusive that, as a matter of law, no probability of fact
can be drawn from the combined circumstances.
… Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that of
the fact finder; thus, so long as the evidence adduced, accepted
in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates
the respective elements of a defendant’s crimes beyond a
reasonable doubt, the appellant’s convictions will be upheld.
Commonwealth v. Tukhi, 149 A.3d 881, 886–87 (Pa. Super. 2016)
(internal citations omitted). Credibility of witnesses and the weight of the
evidence produced is within the province of the trier of fact, who is free to
believe all, part or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Scott, 146
A.3d 775, 777 (Pa. Super. 2016).
In arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction,
Appellant asks us to disregard the statement he gave to Detective Grace
wherein he explicitly admitted that he possessed a concealed gun on his
-4-
J-S45045-17
person without a license on the streets of Philadelphia and implicitly
admitted that the gun was operable. See Appellant’s Brief at 12. This we
cannot do. See Commonwealth v. Gray, 867 A.2d 560, 567 (Pa. Super.
2005) (“[I]n evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not review a
diminished record. Rather, the law is clear that we are required to consider
all evidence that was actually received, without consideration as to the
admissibility of that evidence or whether the trial court’s evidentiary rulings
are correct.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
It is clear that while Appellant couches his argument in terms of
sufficiency of the evidence, his real challenge is to the admission and
consideration of his statement to Detective Grace based on the corpus delicti
rule. This Court has discussed corpus delicti challenges as follows.
The corpus delicti rule is designed to guard against the hasty and
unguarded character which is often attached to confessions and
admissions and the consequent danger of a conviction where no
crime has in fact been committed. The corpus delicti rule is a
rule of evidence. Our standard of review on appeals challenging
an evidentiary ruling of the trial court is limited to a
determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion.
The corpus delicti rule places the burden on the prosecution to
establish that a crime has actually occurred before a confession
or admission of the accused connecting him to the crime can be
admitted. The corpus delicti is literally the body of the crime; it
consists of proof that a loss or injury has occurred as a result of
the criminal conduct of someone. The criminal responsibility of
the accused for the loss or injury is not a component of the rule.
The historical purpose of the rule is to prevent a conviction
based solely upon a confession or admission, where in fact no
crime has been committed. The corpus delicti may be
established by circumstantial evidence. Establishing the corpus
delicti in Pennsylvania is a two-step process. The first step
-5-
J-S45045-17
concerns the trial judge’s admission of the accused’s statements
and the second step concerns the fact finder’s consideration of
those statements. In order for the statement to be admitted, the
Commonwealth must prove the corpus delicti by a
preponderance of the evidence. In order for the statement to be
considered by the fact finder, the Commonwealth must establish
the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.
Commonwealth v. Hernandez, 39 A.3d 406, 410-11 (Pa. Super. 2012)
(citations and quotation marks omitted).
Appellant’s corpus delicti argument focuses on his conviction under
subsection 1606(a)(1) of the crimes code, which provides in relevant part:
“any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person …
without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a
felony of the third degree.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 1606(a)(1).
Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to follow the two-step
process to establish corpus delicti. According to Appellant, because the
Commonwealth never established by a preponderance of the evidence that a
crime occurred, it should not have been permitted to enter into the record
Appellant’s statement obtained while he was being interviewed in the
hospital after being shot. Appellant’s Brief at 11. Highlighting that the gun
at issue was never recovered, Appellant further contends that it was
improper for the trial court to have considered Appellant’s statement
because there was no other evidence that Appellant carried a firearm
concealed on his person without a license. Id. at 12.
-6-
J-S45045-17
However, we agree with the trial court and the Commonwealth that
Appellant waived his corpus delicti claim. See Trial Court Opinion,
1/19/2017, at 6-7. In order to preserve a challenge to the admission of an
inculpatory statement based on corpus delicti grounds, an objection must be
raised prior to or during the Commonwealth’s introduction of the statement.
Commonwealth v. Chambliss, 847 A.2d 115, 120-21 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(“As Appellant did not raise any objection to the Commonwealth’s admission
of this evidence during the Commonwealth’s presentation of this evidence,
we do not find that Appellant has properly preserved a [corpus delicti]
challenge to the admissibility of the confession.”) An appellant’s failure to
raise a contemporaneous objection to evidence at trial waives that claim on
appeal. Pa.R.E. 103(a); Commonwealth. v. Thoeun Tha, 64 A.3d 704,
713 (Pa. Super. 2013).
Our review of the record reveals that Appellant filed a motion to
suppress, but the motion made no arguments regarding corpus delicti.
Furthermore, when the Commonwealth sought to introduce Appellant’s
written statement into the record, not only did Appellant fail to object on
corpus delicti grounds, he specifically stated that he did not have any
objections to the admission of the statement. N.T., 4/1/2016,1 at 15.
1
The trial occurred on April 1, 2016, but the transcript is erroneously dated
June 9, 2016.
-7-
J-S45045-17
Therefore, Appellant did not preserve a challenge to the admissibility of his
statement, and the trial court did not err by admitting it.
Furthermore, Appellant has also waived any challenge to the trial
court’s consideration of his statement. Appellant moved for acquittal after
the Commonwealth rested its case, but his oral motion was based upon his
argument that the Commonwealth did not prove that the gun was operable
or that Appellant did not have a license on the day in question, not corpus
delicti. N.T., 4/1/2016, at 41. Although Appellant did raise the issue of
corpus delicti in his post-sentence motion, this was after the trial court’s
deliberations and, therefore, too late. See Chambliss, 847 A.2d at 121
(holding that corpus delicti challenge to trial court’s consideration of a
confession was not waived because it was raised during closing argument
prior to the factfinder’s deliberations). Accordingly, we hold that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in considering Appellant’s statements to
Detective Grace when rendering its verdict.
Judgement of sentence affirmed.
-8-
J-S45045-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/7/2017
-9-