Com. v. Cox, V., Jr.
231 A.3d 1011
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background:
- On January 15, 2017, Vernon Cox asked Leon White to obtain marijuana; White arranged a meeting with Ryan Small.
- Price dispute: Cox had $70 but Small sold for $80; Cox said he would take the marijuana if not sold for $70.
- Cox approached Small’s car, opened the passenger door, fired three shots; as Small fled, Cox fired again; Small died of gunshot wounds.
- Eyewitness White testified to Cox shooting; the firearm was recovered at Cox’s residence and tied to him; a cellmate testified Cox confessed.
- At trial a jury convicted Cox of first-, second-, and third-degree murder; court imposed mandatory life without parole for first-degree murder.
- On appeal Anders counsel sought to withdraw; issues raised were sufficiency, weight, and denial of a mistrial based on an unrelated courthouse-area shooting; the court found counsel complied with Anders and affirmed the sentence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for murder convictions | Evidence (eyewitness testimony, gun found at Cox’s residence, cellmate confession) proves intentional killing/robbery-based murder | Verdict unsupported by the evidence (general sufficiency challenge) | Affirmed: Evidence sufficient to support first-degree murder; trial court analysis adopted |
| Weight of the evidence | Claim waived because no post-sentence or pre-sentencing written/oral motion; alternatively weight supports verdict | Verdict is against the weight of the evidence | Waived for failure to preserve; alternatively meritless if preserved |
| Denial of mistrial (external courthouse-area shooting) | Outside shooting did not link to the case; only one juror had limited knowledge and denied prejudice after voir dire | Mistrial required because the external shooting (involving related parties) could bias jurors toward conviction | Denial not an abuse of discretion; no unavoidable prejudice shown |
| Anders counsel compliance & withdrawal | Counsel complied with Anders/Santiago requirements, notified appellant, and filed brief/petition | Appellant claimed he was not served with Anders brief; counsel sent supplemental notice and appellant given time to respond | Counsel complied; court performed independent review, found no non-frivolous issues, and granted withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural rules when counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds the appeal is frivolous)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Pennsylvania requirements for the contents of an Anders brief)
- Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266 (Pa. Super. 2018) (appellate court must independently review the record for non-frivolous issues after Anders compliance)
- Commonwealth v. Franklin, 69 A.3d 719 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Thomas, 215 A.3d 36 (Pa. 2019) (elements of first-degree murder and inference of intent from firearm use on vital part of body)
- Commonwealth v. Tejada, 834 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard for reviewing denial of a mistrial; mistrial needed only when unavoidable prejudice deprives fair trial)