Com. v. Hall, R.

J-S17018-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee

v.

RASHEED HALL

Appellant No. 2705 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered August 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at Nos: CP-51-CR-0004945-2014; and
CP-51-CR-0004943-2014

BEFORE: OLSON, STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JUNE 30, 2017

Appellant Rasheed Hall appeals from the August 21, 2015 judgment of

sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (“trial

court”). Upon review, we affirm.

The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. As

recounted by the trial court:

On January 30, 2014, at 11:30 pm, Sharday Williams and her
boyfriend Derrick Moye left Moye’s residence located on the 2600
block of West Lehigh Avenue. After taking a few steps towards
her car, co-Defendant Clinton Brown approached Williams, stole
her wallet, and ran away. Observing the robbery of his girlfriend
Williams, Moye chased after co-Defendant Brown. As Moye
chased co-Defendant, [Appellant] Rasheed Hall emerged from
the front of a nearby bar, struck Moye in the head with a firearm
and then fired one shot into Moye’s chest. [Appellant] and co-
Defendant then fled the scene together on foot, running in the
same direction.

Following the shooting, Williams and Moye went to Moye’s
home, where his mother also resided. Moye’s mother dialed
911, and police and an ambulance arrived shortly thereafter.
Moye was taken to Temple University Hospital. Police officers
J-S17018-17

then took Williams to Northwest Detectives where she provided a
description of the males. Based upon “flash” information
describing [Appellant] and co-Defendant, police officers stopped
three males who were standing together: [Appellant], co-
Defendant, and another male. An hour after the robbery and
shooting, [o]fficers then brought Williams to the location where
officers had the three individuals stopped, and Williams identified
[Appellant] and co-Defendant as the two males who stole her
wallet and shot Moye.

Search incident to their arrests, police recovered two cell
phones from [Appellant] and co-Defendant. Detectives obtained
search warrants for the phones, however, they were unable to
access [Appellant’s] phone. After obtaining the cell phone
number for co-Defendant’s phone, detectives then obtained
search warrants for the subscriber information and call logs for
that phone. Detectives determined that co-Defendant’s contacts
included one with the name of “Sheed.” The number associated
with “Sheed” was [Appellant’s] cell phone number. Detectives
called the number for “Sheed,” and [Appellant’s] cell phone
rang. Detectives reviewed the call logs and determined that
[Appellant] and co-Defendant communicated multiple times
during the period of January 29, 2014 to January 31, 2014,
including two phone calls, roughly eight minutes apart, that
occurred just after the robbery and shooting.

Police obtained a warrant to search the property located at
2531 West Oakdale Street, where [Appellant] resided. As part of
the search, Detective Leonard Azzarano recovered five .32
caliber rounds, one .40 caliber round, and fourteen .22 caliber
rounds from a bowl in the kitchen. Detective Azzarano also
recovered one black and one tan jacket from the dining room.
Detective Kevin Sloan recovered numerous .45 caliber rounds
from inside a suitcase in the middle bedroom of the second floor,
along with a dry cleaning receipt, dated 1/28/14, with
[Appellant’s] name on it and a description of the article of
clothing cleaned as one jumpsuit. Shortly after the robbery,
police recovered a silver .22 caliber revolver from the 2600 block
of Sterner Street, which was approximately one block from the
residence of co-Defendant Brown.

Hyung Le, a forensic scientist with the Philadelphia Police
Office of Forensic Science, testified that there was gunshot
residue on the black Dickie jumpsuit worn by [Appellant] and
recovered from him the night of his arrest, in particular, on the
outside front and back of the right sleeve and cuff.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/15/16, at 1-3 (footnote omitted).

On April 23, 2015, Appellant filed a motion to suppress, challenging his

on-scene identification by Sharday Williams. The trial court conducted a

-2-
J-S17018-17

hearing on the motion, at which Williams and Detective Wayne Brown

testified.

Williams testified that on the night of the robbery and shooting,
she and her boyfriend Moye exited his house. As they were
walking toward her car, co-Defendant Brown came from her
right, snatched her purse and ran off to the left. As Moye
chased after co-Defendant, Williams observed [Appellant] step
out from in front of the bar that was two houses down, run
towards Moye and shoot him in the chest. Williams described
[Appellant] as wearing a black hoodie, a black Dickie jacket and
blue pants. Williams stated that from the time they exited the
house until the shooting occurred was about two minutes.

Detective Wayne Brown testified that he brought Williams to
identify three males who had been stopped within an hour of
when the shooting occurred. Detective Brown testified that the
three males who were detained were standing outside the police
car, that it was dark but the street lights were lit, that Williams
was seated in the Detective’s car no more than 15’ to 20’ away
with a clear view of the males, and that Williams positively
identified [Appellant] and co-Defendant as the two individuals
involved in the robbery and shooting. Detective Brown testified
that Williams identified [Appellant] by his Dickie outfit or jacket.

Id. at 3-4. At the conclusion of the hearing, Appellant withdrew his

suppression motion. The case proceeded to a jury trial. Following trial,

Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit

aggravated assault, robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, persons not to

possess firearms, carrying a firearm without a license, and possessing an

instrument of crime. The trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate

term of 16½ to 33 years’ imprisonment. Appellant did not file any post-

sentence motions. He timely appealed to this Court. Following Appellant’s

filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal,

the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.

On appeal, Appellant raises three issues for our review:

-3-
J-S17018-17

[I.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it denied
[Appellant’s] motion to suppress the identification of eyewitness
Sharday Williams.

[II.] The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it
denied [Appellant’s] motion to suppress all evidence obtained at
the 2531 Oakdale Street property, as the search warrant was
based on defective information, specifically, the defective
identification of [Appellant].

[III.] The verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The
Commonwealth has shown that [Appellant] was wearing a black
Dickie jumpsuit, which had one particle that could be identified
as gunshot residue and that ammunition of multiple caliber were
found in his residence that he shares with other family
member[s].

Appellant’s Brief at 6 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

We need not address Appellant’s issues on appeal as they are waived.

Appellant’s first issue is waived because, at the conclusion of the

suppression hearing, he agreed with the trial court that the on-scene

eyewitness identification of Appellant by Williams was “not overly

suggestive.” N.T. Suppression, 5/14/15 at 56-57. Moreover, Appellant

withdrew the suppression motion. Appellant’s second issue is similarly

waived. Id. at 58 (“At this point, I’m going to withdraw that motion.”). 1 We

also need not address the merits of Appellant’s third issue because he failed

to preserve it for our review. Specifically, our review of the record indicates

that Appellant failed to raise the weight of the evidence issue before the trial

court. “A weight of the evidence claim must be preserved either in a post-

sentence motion, by a written motion before sentencing, or orally prior to
____________________________________________

1
Our review of the docket does not indicate that Appellant renewed his
suppression motion in the trial court.

-4-
J-S17018-17

sentencing. Failure to properly preserve the claim will result in waiver, even

if the trial court addresses the issue in its opinion.” Commonwealth v.

Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 607) (other

citations omitted). As Appellant did not raise this claim at sentencing or

preserve it through a timely filed post-sentence motion, the issue is waived

on appeal.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/30/2017

-5-