Com. v. Huertas, E. (memorandum)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S75004-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. EDWIN HUERTAS Appellant No. 1696 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 27, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006682-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2013 Appellant, Edwin Huertas, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and possessing instruments of crime ( PIC ).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 February 27, 2012, the court convicted Appellant of criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and PIC. That same day, the court sentenced Appellant to three years probation. Appellant timely filed post-sentence motions on March 8, 2012. On May 3, 2012, the court denied relief. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3503; 3304; 907, respectively. J-S75004-13 Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on May 31, 2012. On June 8, 2012, the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which Appellant timely filed on June 25, 2012. Appellant raises two issues for our review: WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION FOR THE OFFENSE OF CRIMINAL TRESPASS AS THE COMMONWEALTH PRODUCED NO EVIDENCE ON THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT LICENSED OR PRIVILEGED TO BE ON THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE? IN THIS CASE INVOLVING A SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION, WAS NOT THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE TO SUCH A DEGREE AS TO SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE AND CONSEQUENTLY, DID NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT S POST-SENTENCE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ON THOSE GROUNDS? (Appellant s Brief at 4).2 When examining a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence, our standard of review is as follows: The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence 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 regarding a ____________________________________________ 2 We have reordered Appellant s issues. -2- J-S75004-13 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 [trier] of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108, 120-21 (Pa.Super. 2005)). Additionally: The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses. An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the finder of fact. Thus, we may only reverse the ¦verdict if it is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one s sense of justice. Moreover, where the trial court has ruled on the weight claim below, an appellate court s role is not to consider the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Rather, appellate review is limited to whether the trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on the weight claim. Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444, 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939, 124 S.Ct. 2906, 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (internal citations omitted). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion of the Honorable Alice Beck -3- J-S75004-13 Dubow, we conclude Appellant s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed August 2, 2012, at 3-5) (finding: (1) eyewitness testified that Appellant used crowbar to break into back of Cricket store; court reasonably inferred from testimony that Appellant was not licensed or privileged to enter premises; Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant s conviction for criminal trespass; (2) eyewitness observed Appellant break into Cricket store using crowbar; Officer Carbonara saw Appellant carrying crowbar while Appellant was walking behind Cricket store; court found testimony of eyewitness and police officer credible;3 court properly denied Appellant s motion for new trial where verdict was not against weight of evidence).4 Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. ____________________________________________ 3 The trial court also found the testimony of Appellant s witnesses not credible. (See Trial Court Opinion at 2.) 4 The correct citation for Commonwealth v. Gordon is 477 A.2d 1342 (Pa.Super. 1984). -4- J-S75004-13 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/23/2013 -5-

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.