Com. v. Hiller, Y. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S70004-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. YVONNE HILLER Appellant No. 2724 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 24, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0015197-2010; CP-51-CR-0015198-2010; CP-51-CR-0015199-2010 BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., OLSON, J., and WECHT, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 09, 2013 Appellant, Yvonne Hiller, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following her bench trial convictions for first-degree murder, attempted murder, recklessly endangering another person ( REAP ), and simple assault.1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, on September 10, 2012, the court convicted Appellant of firstdegree murder, attempted murder, REAP, and simple assault. The court sentenced Appellant on September 24, 2012, to an aggregate term of life ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. ยงยง 2502(a); 901 (2502 related); 2705; 2701, respectively. J-S70004-13 imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on September 25, 2012. On September 28, 2012, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant filed an initial concise statement on October 26, 2012, and after the court granted Appellant an extension of time to file a supplemental statement, Appellant filed a supplemental concise statement on February 13, 2012. Appellant raises one issue for our review: WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO CONVICT APPELLANT OF [REAP] AS TO COMPLAINANT OFFICER MICHAEL MURPHY, AS THE COMMONWEALTH FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY ENDANGERED BY APPELLANT S CONDUCT? (Appellant s Brief at 3). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Benjamin Lerner, we conclude Appellant s issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion discusses and properly disposes of the claim presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed March 11, 2013, at 4-5; 7-9) (finding: Officer Black testified that Appellant shot at officers, including Officer Murphy, from distance of 20 yards and bullet hit to their left; Appellant s act of firing loaded gun in Officer Murphy s direction satisfies elements of REAP; fact that bullet did not strike Officer Murphy is immaterial; Commonwealth presented -2- J-S70004-13 sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant s REAP conviction as to Officer Murphy). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/9/2013 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
