J-S43040-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DENZEL KADEEM GAINES
Appellant No. 196 WDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 12, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-26-CR-0001197-2016
BEFORE: STABILE, SOLANO, and FITZGERALD* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED JULY 28, 2017
Appellant, Denzel Kadeem Gaines, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas following his
jury trial conviction of, inter alia, persons not to possess firearms.1
Appellant alleges there was insufficient evidence to support his firearms
conviction. We affirm.
The trial court’s opinion summarizes the relevant facts of this case as
follows:
The evidence presented at trial established through the
testimony of Pennsylvania State Trooper Shane Reaghard
that he was partnered with another trooper, Adam
Sikorski, on May 31, 2016, at 2:30 A.M., when they
attempted to make a routine traffic stop of the vehicle in
which [Appellant] was a passenger. The stop was
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).
J-S43040-17
originally attempted on East Fayette Street in Uniontown,
Fayette County, Pennsylvania, but the vehicle turned down
an alley instead of stopping. When the vehicle was in the
alley, the front passenger door opened and [Appellant]
jumped out and ran. Trooper Reaghard immediately
exited his marked police vehicle and began a foot chase in
an area colloquially referred to as the Pershing Court
housing project. [Appellant] tried to climb over a fence,
but fell backward, at which time the trooper observed a
gun in the waistband of [Appellant’s] pants. During the
chase Trooper Sikorski saw a handgun in [Appellant’s] left
hand as [Appellant] fled from him, and yelled at him to
drop it, which [Appellant] did.
After Trooper Reaghard and Trooper Sikorski
apprehended [Appellant], he initially gave them a name
other than his own when they asked him for his name.
When they patted him down, he no longer had a weapon
on his person. While [T]rooper Reaghard stayed with the
just-apprehended [Appellant], Trooper Sikorski went back
along the chase route to locate the gun. The trooper found
the gun on the sidewalk, put gloves on to retrieve it and
then secured [the gun] in the trunk of the police vehicle.
Photos of the firearm retrieved from the sidewalk along the
chase route by Trooper Sikorski were admitted into
evidence . . . . For the benefit of the trial jury, defense
counsel stipulated that [Appellant] is a member of the
class referred to in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(c) and as such, he is
not permitted to possess a firearm.
Trial Ct. Op., 3/1/17, at 2 (record citations omitted). On January 9, 2017, a
jury convicted Appellant of, inter alia, persons not to possess firearms. The
trial court sentenced him on January 12, 2017, to three to six years’
imprisonment. Appellant timely appealed. The court ordered Appellant to
file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
-2-
J-S43040-17
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY
INSUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT [APPELLANT] WAS GUILTY
OF [PERSONS] NOT TO POSSESS FIREARMS?
Appellant’s Brief at 8.
Appellant argues there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction of persons not to possess firearms. Appellant claims the
Commonwealth failed to meet its burden and present sufficient evidence
through its witnesses to enable the jury to find Appellant guilty of the
firearms offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, Appellant alleges
that Trooper Reaghard’s description of the firearm was inconsistent with his
testimony at a previous hearing, and that Trooper Sikorski testified that he
did not actually see Appellant throw a gun. Appellant concludes he should
be granted a judgment of acquittal or a new trial. We disagree.2
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
[t]he standard we apply . . . 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
2
We note Appellant’s brief also alleges the verdict was against the weight of
the evidence. See Appellant’s Brief at 14, 16. Nevertheless, Appellant did
not raise this claim in either a post-sentence motion or his Rule 1925(b)
statement. Therefore, any claim challenging the weight of the evidence is
waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d
775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (“Any issues not raised in a [Rule] 1925(b) statement
will be deemed waived.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).
-3-
J-S43040-17
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. 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 credibility of witnesses and the
weight of the evidence, is free to believe all, part or none
of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 542-43 (Pa. Super. 2015),
appeal denied, 138 A.3d 4 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted).
The Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes define persons not to possess
firearms, in relevant part, as follows:
§ 6105. Persons not to possess, use, manufacture,
control, sell or transfer firearms
(a) Offense defined.―
(1) A person who has been convicted of an offense
enumerated in subsection (b), within or without this
Commonwealth, regardless of the length of sentence
or whose conduct meets the criteria in subsection (c)
shall not possess, use, control, sell, transfer or
manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use,
control, sell, transfer or manufacture a firearm in this
Commonwealth.
18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1).
Instantly, at trial, both Trooper Reaghard and Trooper Sikorski
testified to seeing a bulge in Appellant’s waistband/shirt area as he fled the
vehicle on foot. N.T., 1/9/17, at 18-19, 22. Trooper Reaghard further
testified that he observed a silver and black firearm in Appellant’s waistband
-4-
J-S43040-17
when Appellant climbed over a fence and fell backwards during the foot
pursuit. Id. at 9-10, 15-16. Moreover, Trooper Sikorski testified that during
the chase, he saw Appellant holding a firearm in his left hand but briefly lost
sight of Appellant as they were rounding the corner of a house. Id. at 23.
When Trooper Sikorski cleared the corner, he saw that Appellant no longer
had a gun in his hand. Id. Additionally, the trial court concluded:
[T]he Commonwealth established that the weapon is/was
seen to be in [Appellant’s] possession by both [state
troopers] during the foot chase. Through the stipulation
placed into the record, [Appellant] admitted that he is in
the class of persons precluded by the statute from
possessing or being in control of a firearm.
Trial Ct. Op. at 3. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Commonwealth, there was sufficient evidence to support
Appellant’s conviction of persons not to possess firearms. See Talbert, 129
A.3d at 542. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/28/2017
-5-