Com. v. Alleyne, L., 236 EDA 2017

Appellant Lael J. Alleyne (age 16 at the time) and co‑defendant Charles Martin III planned to rob two men, Nichelson Raymond and Richard Piscoya, during a purported drug sale arranged through Monserrat Rosas.
At the meeting, Alleyne opened the car door, pointed a gun, demanded marijuana, Raymond attempted to reverse the car to flee, and shots were fired; Raymond died.
Alleyne was tried with Martin and convicted of first‑degree murder, two counts of robbery, two counts of conspiracy (one as to each victim), possession of an instrument of crime, and possession of a firearm by a minor; he received an aggregate sentence of 48 years to life.
On appeal Alleyne challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence, (2) denial of a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction, and (3) admission of autopsy photographs.
The Commonwealth conceded the two conspiracy convictions arose from a single agreement to rob both victims; the Superior Court reversed the conspiracy conviction as to Piscoya but affirmed all other convictions and declined resentencing because the reversed count ran concurrently.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: whether there were one or multiple conspiracies	Commonwealth argued evidence showed a single conspiratorial agreement to rob both victims	Alleyne argued multiple conspiracy convictions unsupported because the plan targeted two separate victims	Reversed one conspiracy conviction (Piscoya) — the crimes flowed from one agreement; single conspiracy only
Voluntary manslaughter jury instruction	N/A (Commonwealth opposed instruction)	Alleyne argued he may have reasonably believed Raymond was reaching for a gun when Raymond moved the car, warranting instruction	Denied — Alleyne denied committing the killing at trial, so voluntary manslaughter instruction not required or supported by the evidence
Admissibility of autopsy photographs	Commonwealth maintained photos were probative and admissible	Alleyne argued photos were unduly prejudicial	Waived — photographs not in the certified record, so appellate review unavailable
Remedy / Sentencing impact of reversing one conspiracy count	Commonwealth implicitly argued no resentencing needed because sentences concurrent	Alleyne sought relief from conviction/sentence	Partial reversal only; no remand for resentencing because reversal did not alter aggregate sentence

Laboy v. Commonwealth, 936 A.2d 1058 (Pa. 2007) (appellate sufficiency review may be afforded despite Rule 1925(b) specificity failure in relatively straightforward cases)
Andrews v. Commonwealth, 768 A.2d 309 (Pa. 2001) (challenge whether conduct constituted one or multiple conspiracies is a sufficiency/fact question)
Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 135 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2016) (elements of criminal conspiracy defined)
Sanchez v. Commonwealth, 82 A.3d 943 (Pa. 2013) (voluntary manslaughter instruction requires evidence of sudden and intense passion from serious provocation; instruction not required where defendant denies the killing)
Solano v. Commonwealth, 906 A.2d 1180 (Pa. 2006) (two‑step test for admissibility of gruesome photographs: inflammatory nature and probative value vs. prejudice)
Petroll v. Commonwealth, 696 A.2d 817 (Pa. Super. 1997) (claims dependent on record materials not provided are waived)
Powell v. Commonwealth, 956 A.2d 406 (Pa. 2008) (appellate review of prejudicial photographs impossible if photograph not in record)