Com. v. Gordon, J. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A14012-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JOHN GORDON, Appellant No. 1088 EDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 4, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-23-CR-0006008-2011 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SHOGAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2017 Appellant, John Gordon, appeals from the judgment of sentence of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, imposed after he was convicted, following a non-jury trial, of first-degree murder and persons not to possess a firearm. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence to support the court’s verdict. After careful review, we affirm. Appellant’s convictions stem from the July 18, 2011 murder of Randy Campbell, who was gunned down around 2:00 a.m. outside an after-hours nightclub in Upper Darby, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. After Appellant was charged in this case, he waived his right to a jury trial in exchange for the Commonwealth’s agreement not to seek the death penalty. Appellant proceeded to a non-jury trial that spanned several days in September and J-A14012-17 October of 2015. At the close thereof, the court convicted Appellant of the above-stated offenses. He was then sentenced on December 4, 2015, to an aggregate term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, challenging sufficiency and weight of the evidence to sustain his convictions. hearing, the court denied Appellant’s motion. the After a He filed a timely notice of appeal, and he also timely complied with the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. Herein, Appellant presents two issues for our review: A. Was the guilty verdict finding Appellant guilty of first[-]degree murder contrary to law insofar as the evidence presented by the Commonwealth was inherently contradictory such that the guilty verdict constitutes a due process violation? B. Did the trial court commit an abuse of discretion by denying Appellant’s motion seeking a new trial on weight of the evidence grounds? Appellant’s Brief at 3. On December 30, 2016, The Honorable Kevin F. Kelly of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. In Judge Kelly’s extensive, 53-page decision, he thoroughly summarizes the evidence presented at Appellant’s trial, and he provides a well-reasoned analysis of the two claims Appellant raises herein. Having reviewed the certified record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that Judge Kelly’s analysis correctly disposes of Appellant’s issues. Therefore, we adopt Judge -2- J-A14012-17 Kelly’s decision as our own and affirm Appellant’s judgment of sentence on that basis. Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/14/2017 -3- Circulated 07/19/2017 02:52 PM Circulated 07/19/2017 02:52 PM Circulated 07/19/2017 02:52 PM
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.
