Com. v. Hutchinson, C. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S21002-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. CURTIS HUTCHINSON, Appellant No. 560 EDA 2011 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered January 25, 2011 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0010457-2010 BEFORE: BENDER, J., BOWES, J., and LAZARUS, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, J. FILED MAY 06, 2013 Curtis Hutchinson appeals the judgment of sentence of 30 to 60 months incarceration imposed following his conviction of Retaliation Against Witness or Victim and Terroristic Threats. See 18 Pa.C.S. ยงยง 4953(a), 2706(a) (respectively). Hutchinson contends that the Commonwealth failed to adduce sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of Retaliation Against Witness or Victim and that the trial court erred in admitting the victim s testimony that Hutchinson s threats were depressing and nerve-racking. Hutchinson, who had been previously convicted of robbing the victim in this case, apparently sought him out following release on parole and, in the incident that underlies this case, threatened him with death. Hutchinson s case proceeded to a non-jury trial before the Honorable Roxanne E. Covington. During the Commonwealth s case-in-chief, the J-S21002-13 prosecution introduced, over the objection of defense counsel, testimony of the victim, Juan Ramon, concerning emotions he experienced in response to the threats Hutchinson had made. Judge Covington concluded that the evidence was relevant to prove an element of Retaliation Against Witness or Victim as it reflected Hutchinson s intention in making the threats. At the conclusion of trial, Judge Covington found Hutchinson guilty as charged and imposed the term of imprisonment at issue here to be followed by two years reporting probation based on the defendant s status as a repeat felon. In support of the judgment of sentence, Judge Covington prepared an Opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a), which we find correct and comprehensive. We need not add to Judge Covington s discussion and accordingly, we adopt her Opinion as our own. For the reasons stated therein, we affirm Hutchinson s judgment of sentence. Judgment of sentence AFFIRMED. Judgment Entered. Prothonotary Date: 5/6/2013 -2-
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.
