Opinion
J-S43010-16 No. 1493 MDA 2015
07-13-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. SHAKOOR R. TRAPP Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 8, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-41-CR-0000866-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and JENKINS, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Shakoor R. Trapp, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions of attempted homicide, aggravated assault, burglary, criminal trespass, possessing an instrument of crime, recklessly endangering another person, and simple assault. We affirm.
In its opinions, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
WHETHER THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN CONVICTIONS ON ALL CHARGES?(Appellant's Brief at 8).
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A VERDICT OF GUILTY AS TO ALL CHARGES?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE COMMONWEALTH'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF APPELLANT'S EXPERT WITNESS REGARDING WITNESS' IDENTIFICATION OF APPELLANT?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON [APPELLANT] WAS NOT EXCESSIVE IN NATURE?
WHETHER THE SENTENCE MUST BE VACATED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT RELIED UPON IMPERMISSIBLE FACTORS IN IMPOSING SENTENCE?
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Marc F. Lovecchio, we conclude Appellant's issues on appeal merit no relief. The trial court opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed January 14, 2016, at 3-19; see also Trial Court Opinions, filed August 21, 2015 and September 5, 2014) (finding: (1)-(2) jury's guilty verdicts were consistent with evidence and far from shocking; following attack, Victim positively identified Appellant as assailant; Victim's identification reliably established Appellant's culpability for crimes at issue; court properly determined Appellant's convictions were supported by weight of evidence; Appellant broke into and attacked Victim as she slept in her home; Victim sustained multiple stab wounds to her chest; Victim sustained gunshot wounds in her temple, cheek, and knee areas; Victim had ample opportunity to view her attacker during attack, given surrounding circumstances; neighbor's testimony placed Appellant near crime scene around time of attack; neighbor observed Appellant in possession of handgun, days before attack, that was similar to weapon Victim described; Victim positively identified Appellant as her attacker through Facebook pictures and non-suggestive photo array; Victim's in-court identification was certain; police apprehended Appellant at nearby residence hiding between ceiling joists in hot and uncomfortable area, thus demonstrating Appellant's consciousness of guilt, where Appellant did not hide before this incident, despite his other outstanding warrants; police recovered bloody sock from Appellant's residence, which contained both Appellant's and Victim's DNA; Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant's convictions; (3) Commonwealth v. Walker , 625 Pa. 450, 92 A.3d 766 (2014), allows for expert testimony regarding eyewitness accounts where Commonwealth's case is solely or primarily reliant on eyewitness evidence, but Walker is distinguishable; here, Victim knew Appellant and Victim's identification was not cross-racial; Victim's identification was made under non-suggestive photo-array; testimony from neighbor, physical evidence from bloody sock, videotaped admission that Appellant's sock was "probably his," and circumstances of Appellant's apprehension show that Commonwealth's case was not solely reliant on eyewitness testimony; court did not err in granting Commonwealth's Motion in limine to exclude Appellant's proposed eyewitness expert witness; (4) court had benefit of pre-sentence investigation report, considered Appellant's prior record and troubled family history, heard from Victim, reflected on nature and circumstances of Appellant's crimes and their impact on community; court imposed sentence that was not excessive given circumstances; (5) deadly-weapon-used sentencing guidelines matrix is merely advisory and outside purview of Alleyne v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013); deadly-weapon-used matrix was evidently applicable in this case; court retained sentencing discretion after it determined proper sentencing guideline range under deadly-weapon-used matrix; likewise, prevailing law has already rejected Appellant's constitutional challenges to deadly-weapon-used matrix). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinions.
See , e.g., Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh , 91 A.3d 1247, 1270 n. 10 (Pa.Super. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that if sentencing enhancement applies, court is required to raise standard guideline range; however, court retains discretion to sentence outside guideline ranges; therefore, application of sentencing enhancements do not violate Alleyne ). See also Commonwealth v. Ali , 112 A.3d 1210, 1226 (Pa.Super. 2015) (stating sentence enhancements do not bind court to impose particular sentence or compel court to sentence within specified guideline range; guidelines are advisory only, even though they contain word "shall"; enhanced guidelines do not fall under Alleyne holding).
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 7/13/2016
Image materials not available for display.