Com. v. Newsuan (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S68027-12 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEXTER L.L. NEWSUAN Appellant No. 136 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 16, 2011 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009230-2008 CP-51-CR-0009215-2008 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and WECHT, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J. Filed: January 14, 2013 Dexter L.L. Newsuan appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after the Honorable Jeffrey P. Minehart, in a bench trial, convicted him of two counts of firstdegree murder, two violations of the Uniform Firearms Act (VUFA) and possession of instruments of crime (PIC). Upon review, we affirm. This case stems from an incident in which Newsuan shot and killed two young men over a drug dispute. Although there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, Newsuan later confessed what he had done to two individuals, one of whom had lent Newsuan a .9 mm firearm on the day of the shooting. The cartridge casings found at the scene were determined to have come from .9 mm bullets, all fired from the same gun. J-S68027-12 On December 16, 2011, Judge Minehart found Newsuan guilty of the above crimes and immediately sentenced him to consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the murders,1 as well as 3½ to 7 years incarceration for carrying a firearm without a license,2 2½ to 5 years incarceration for carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia3 and 2½ to 5 years incarceration for PIC.4 The VUFA and PIC sentences were imposed to run concurrently to Newsuan s first life sentence. Newsuan did not file post- sentencing motions; he filed a notice of appeal to this Court on December 19, 2011. Judge Minehart directed Newsuan to file a concise statement of matters raised on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which he did on February 21, 2012. Judge Minehart filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on May 11, 2012. In his Rule 1925(b) statement and in his appellate statement of questions involved, Newsuan frames his claim as one raising the sufficiency of the evidence. However, a review of his argument reveals that his claim actually addresses the weight of the evidence. Specifically, Newsuan calls into question the credibility of the witnesses who testified against him at ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(a). 2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1). 3 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108. 4 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a). -2- J-S68027-12 trial. Such an argument is more properly characterized as a challenge to the weight of the evidence, as opposed to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. In the Interest of D.S., 39 A.3d 968, 972 (Pa. 2012). A claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence must be raised with the trial judge in a motion for a new trial prior to sentencing or in a postsentence motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). As Newsuan failed to properly preserve his weight claim, it is deemed waived.5 Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483 (Pa. 2009). Judgment of sentence affirmed. ____________________________________________ 5 Newsuan also claims that the Commonwealth failed to prove either the element of malice, i.e. specific intent to kill, or motive. These issues, as well as a general discussion of the sufficiency of the evidence, are addressed in Judge Minehart s Rule 1925(a) opinion, which we incorporate herein by reference. The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter. -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.
