Com. v. Bermudez, M.
386 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- In December 2014 Michael Bermudez was charged after the December 10, 2014 robbery and shooting of Conner Rivera; charges later amended to 3 counts robbery, 5 counts conspiracy, 2 counts aggravated assault.
- Bermudez's case was tried jointly (consolidated) with co-defendant Ronald Calderon; jury trial took place September 4, 2015.
- Victim Rivera testified he knew both men from school/neighborhood, identified Bermudez and Calderon as the intruders despite partial masks, and described being pistol-whipped and shot.
- Police testimony corroborated Rivera’s identification; victim had used marijuana earlier but said he was not under its influence at the time of the robbery.
- Jury convicted Bermudez on all counts; trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 5–12 years' imprisonment on October 28, 2015.
- Bermudez filed post-sentence motions asserting insufficiency and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; trial court denied them and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain convictions | Commonwealth: evidence (victim ID, testimony) sufficient to prove aggravated assault, robbery, conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt | Bermudez: identification was unreliable and there was no evidence directly tying him to the crimes | Court: Viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, evidence was sufficient; even a misframed sufficiency claim would fail |
| Whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence (new trial) | Commonwealth: jury verdict based on credibility determinations should stand | Bermudez: testimony was inconsistent; alternative alibis suggested (with brother/girlfriend) and victim credibility was questioned | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion; weight challenge fails, verdict not so contrary to evidence as to shock justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Palo, 24 A.3d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to verdict winner)
- Commonwealth v. Chamberlain, 658 A.2d 395 (Pa. Super. 1995) (clarifies proper appeal from judgment of sentence vs. order denying post-sentence motions)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standards and deference for appellate review of weight-of-the-evidence claims)