Com. v. Eggleston (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A04028-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ZKRR EGGLESTON Appellant No. 558 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 27, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006497-2008 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., MUNDY, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: Filed: March 4, 2013 Appellant, Zkrr Eggleston, appeals from the January 27, 2012 aggregate judgment of sentence of seven to 14 years incarceration followed by seven years reporting probation after he was found guilty of aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, recklessly endangering another person (REAP), and simple assault.1 After careful review, we affirm. The relevant facts and procedural history can be summarized as follows. On May 11, 2008, Philadelphia Police Officer William Greco, Jr., stopped Appellant in his vehicle, a white Lexus, in response to a police radio broadcast advising officers to be on the lookout for said vehicle, which was ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702, 903, 2705, and 2701, respectively. J-A04028-13 being pursued by a complainant. Trial Court Opinion, 7/19/12, at 2. The complainant in the instant matter, Seth Rosen, had a confrontation with Appellant outside of their vehicles after Mr. Rosen received a call from his girlfriend Lily s mother that she was in the midst of an unwanted visit from Appellant. 2 Id. Appellant returned to his vehicle and instructed Mr. Rosen to follow him, Mr. Rosen complied. Id. at 3. The two vehicles traveled in circles for several minutes, until arriving at Girard Avenue and Marshall Street. Id. Appellant then turned onto Marshall Street and, a few feet into the block, stopped to speak with an older black male who was wearing a sweater. The male leaned into Appellant s car, and briefly exchanged words with Appellant. The male then walked away, and Appellant continued driving up the block. Toward the end of the block, Appellant slammed on his breaks, causing Mr. Rosen to do the same, and [Appellant] angled his car so that Mr. Rosen could not get through. Mr. Rosen testified that, at that moment, a man holding a shotgun emerged on his right side and, from a distance of four or five feet, opened fire on him. Fearing for his life, Mr. Rosen leaned over to duck down. The gunman continued to fire at him; the blasts shattered Mr. Rosen s windshield, destroyed his passenger door, knocked off his windshield wiper, and damaged his radiator and hood. Amazingly, Mr. Rosen averted the bullets, but ____________________________________________ 2 At the time of the incident Lily was Mr. Rosen s girlfriend. Mr. Rosen and Lily are now married. Lily had previously been married to Appellant, and at the time of the incident Lily and Appellant had been separated for one year. Trial Court Opinion, 7/19/12, at 2. -2- J-A04028-13 was bleeding from the broken glass. After several rounds, there was a pause in the shooting, and Mr. Rosen lifted his head up to try to escape, but Appellant was still obstructing him. Before the gunman was able to fire another round at him, Appellant finally moved his car, allowing Mr. Rosen to flee. Driving behind Appellant, Mr. Rosen encountered a police officer who was engaged in a traffic stop. He exclaimed to the officer, [H]e s trying to kill me ¦ that guy just tried to kill me. The officer relayed the information over police radio, and Mr. Rosen continued his pursuit of Appellant. Responding officers stopped them at 7th and Fairmount Avenue. Id. at 3-4. Appellant was subsequently arrested, and on May 23, 2008, Appellant was charged with aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, firearms not to be carried without a license, carry firearms public in Philadelphia, possessing instrument of a crime, simple assault, REAP, and two counts of criminal attempt.3 On November 3, 2011, following a three-day jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, simple assault, and REAP. The jury acquitted Appellant of one count of criminal attempt. The remaining charges were nolle prossed by the Commonwealth. Thereafter, on January 27, 2012 Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of three and one-half to seven years incarceration for the aggravated assault and criminal conspiracy convictions. No further penalties ____________________________________________ 3 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702, 903, 6106, 6108, 907, 2701, 2705, and 901, respectively. -3- J-A04028-13 were imposed on the simple assault and REAP counts. Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions. On February 14, 2012, this timely appeal followed.4 On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues. A. Whether the evidence failed to support [Appellant] s conviction for conspiracy where the Commonwealth presented no evidence showing that [Appellant] was involved in the shooting or that he entered into an agreement to participate, and presented no evidence whatsoever identifying who [Appellant] allegedly conspired with? B. Whether the evidence failed to support [Appellant] s conviction for aggravated assault, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person where the Commonwealth presented no evidence showing that [Appellant] was actually involved in the shooting, but simply that he was present at the scene? Appellant s Brief at 4. As both of Appellant s issues aver there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions, we begin by noting that [t]he 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. Commonwealth v. O Brien, 939 A.2d 912, 913 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). Any doubts concerning an ____________________________________________ 4 Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. -4- J-A04028-13 appellant s guilt [are] to be resolved by the trier of fact unless the evidence was so weak and inconclusive that no probability of fact could be drawn therefrom. Commonwealth v. West, 937 A.2d 516, 523 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 947 A.2d 737 (Pa. 2008). Moreover, [t]he Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Commonwealth v. Perez, 931 A.2d 703, 707 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). Appellant argues that the Commonwealth presented insufficient evidence to establish a conspiracy because it did not show any agreement between [Appellant] and anyone else. Appellant s Brief at 11. Further, Appellant avers the Commonwealth s evidence establishes nothing more than his presence on a roadway when the shooting occurred. Id. at 16. Specifically, Appellant argues he did not fire the shots, hold the gun prior to the shooting, have any connection with the shooter, help the shooter flee, or help the shooter dispose of the weapon. Id. Therefore, Appellant concludes the Commonwealth s evidence failed to establish that [Appellant] was guilty of Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, and Reckless Endangerment based on an accomplice liability theory. Id. at 19. In the instant matter, the trial court authored a comprehensive 15page opinion that properly disposes of each of Appellant s claims. The trial court found that there was ample evidence to sustain Appellant s convictions -5- J-A04028-13 for conspiracy, aggravated assault, simple assault, and REAP. Trial Court Opinion, 7/19/12, at 7. The trial court sets forth a thorough discussion of accomplice liability and the applicable law regarding each of the four crimes for which Appellant was convicted, concluding the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of each crime. Id. at 8-13. In support of its conclusion, the trial court noted that, Appellant actively aided his cohort in firing the shots at Mr. Rosen, by slamming on his brakes and angling his car so as to prevent him from evading the ambush. Id. at 10. Further, the trial court observed that the gunman emerged and commenced shooting at the precise moment that Appellant slammed on his breaks to box in Mr. Rosen. Id. Additionally, [d]espite multiple gunshots, Appellant did not attempt to drive away, but rather waited and maintained his obstructing position as the gunman continued to fire at Mr. Rosen. Id. Therefore, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Appellant s convictions. Id. at 10-13. We have reviewed the record in its entirety and have considered the merits of Appellant s claims. Following our careful scrutiny of the certified record, including the notes of testimony, the parties briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that the trial court s conclusions were entirely proper. The well-reasoned opinion of the trial court provides a detailed analysis of the law of this Commonwealth as related to the facts of this case. -6- J-A04028-13 The trial court then wholly refutes each of Appellant s arguments. Accordingly, we conclude that the July 19, 2012 opinion of the Honorable Susan I. Schulman comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of Appellant s claims. Therefore, we adopt the trial court s opinion as our own for purposes of this appellate review.5 Judgment of sentence affirmed. Justice Fitzgerald concurs in the result. ____________________________________________ 5 We note that Appellant s second claim, addressed by the trial court on pages 13-15 of its opinion, was not pursued by Appellant on appeal. Therefore, we will not review said claim, and our disposition in this matter pertains solely to Appellant s challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. -7-
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.
