Com. v. Cephas, G. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S75003-13 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. GEORGE CEPHAS Appellant No. 870 EDA 2012 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 5, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0013844-2008 MC-51-CR-0051917-2008 BEFORE: GANTMAN, J., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, J.: FILED DECEMBER 23, 2013 Appellant, George Cephas, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial conviction of robbery and attempted kidnapping.1 We affirm. In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Appellant raises the following issues for our review: WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION FOR ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING WHERE APPELLANT SPOKE TO THE COMPLAINANT THROUGH HER CAR WINDOW AND LACKED THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. ยงยง 3701, 901(a) (2901 related), respectively. J-S75003-13 REMOVE HER (1) A SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE AND [(2)] FOR A PROHIBITED PURPOSE, THAT IS, TO FACILITATE COMMISSION OF A ROBBERY, THE PURPOSE OF THE ALLEGED REMOVAL AS CHARGED TO THE JURY? WAS NOT THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE CONVICTION FOR ROBBERY AS A FELONY OF THE FIRST DEGREE WHERE APPELLANT LACKED THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO (1) PUT THE COMPLAINANT IN FEAR OF SERIOUS BODILY INJURY, AND (2) TO COMMIT A THEFT OF THE COMPLAINANT S VEHICLE, THE ALLEGED OBJECT OF THE THEFT? (Appellant s Brief at 3). 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 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. -2- J-S75003-13 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)). After a thorough review of the record, Appellant s brief, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Linda Carpenter, we conclude Appellant s issues merit no relief. comprehensively presented. discusses and properly The trial court opinion disposes of the questions (See Trial Court Opinion, dated March 26, 2013, at 4-6) (finding: (1) Appellant physically pushed against vehicle door to prevent complainant from exiting her vehicle; Appellant s command to complainant to move over and give Appellant keys proved Appellant s intent to commit theft of complainant s vehicle; Appellant s posturing of his hand to appear like gun inside his coat, in conjunction with physical force exerted to prevent complainant from exiting vehicle, proved Appellant s intent to put complainant in fear of immediate serious bodily injury; evidence was sufficient for jury to find Appellant guilty of robbery; (2) Appellant unlawfully attempted to remove complainant substantial distance from area where complainant had parked her vehicle, with intent of facilitating robbery of her vehicle, by threatening complainant with perceived gun, ordering complainant to hand over her keys and move over, pushing against vehicle door to prevent complainant s exit, and struggling with complainant on opposing sides of door after she managed to open her door; evidence was -3- J-S75003-13 sufficient for jury to find Appellant guilty of attempted kidnapping). The record supports the trial court s decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court s opinion. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/23/2013 -4-
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.
