Com. v. Carter, M. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S36003-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MALIK CARTER Appellant No. 2017 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 6, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012444-2010 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, J., and FITZGERALD, J.* MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED JULY 01, 2014 Appellant, Malik Carter, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his jury trial convictions of third degree murder, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms on public streets in Philadelphia, and possessing an instrument of crime.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.2 ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. ยงยง 2502(c), 6106(a)(1), 6108, and 907(a), respectively. 2 (Footnote Continued Next Page) _____________________________ *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S36003-14 Appellant raises the following issue for our review: WHETHER THE VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE WHEN THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AGAINST APPELLANT, THERE WAS AN ALIBI DEFENSE, THREE OF THE COMMONWEALTH WITNESSES RECANTED THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENTS AT TRIAL, AND THE OTHER COMMONWEALTH WITNESSES DID NOT SEE THE SHOOTER. plicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Glenn B. Bronson, we comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 23, 2013, at 4-8) (finding: witnesses had known Appellant for years, identified him to police as shooter, and picked his photograph out of photo array; witness identified Appellant as s to police were admissible at trial as prior inconsistent statements because witnesses signed and adopted statements; jury was free to believe all, part, or none of ed statements did not render evidence insufficient to support convictions because evidence was enough to allow reasonable fact (Footnote Continued) _______________________ See Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc) (allowing for immediate review under these circumstances). -2- J-S36003-14 sufficiency of evidence claim should be rejected; jury, as fact finder, was ere not inflicted at close range supported committed crimes and likewise fully sustained verdict, so court properly rial Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/1/2014 -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.
