Com. v. Dickerson, I.
79 EDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- On June 18, 2015 two masked men robbed a Sunoco; the lighter-skinned assailant brandished a handgun within about one foot of clerk Javon Abraham.
- Abraham knew Dickerson from prior visits (personal conversations; Dickerson gave his phone number) and recognized him during the robbery, saying “I know you.”
- Abraham identified Dickerson from a photo array on July 7, 2015, and made an in-court identification at trial; he earlier declined to identify at the preliminary hearing due to fear for his safety.
- Police traced a blue Chevrolet SUV (license plate noted by Abraham) to Dickerson’s residence and included height/age consistent with Abraham’s description.
- Non-jury trial (bench) resulted in convictions for robbery, criminal conspiracy, and possession of an instrument of crime; sentence 54–120 months plus probation. Post-sentence motions denying sufficiency and weight claims were denied; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identification evidence | Commonwealth: Abraham’s proximity, prior acquaintance, photo-array ID, vehicle info, and consistent physical descriptors suffice to prove identity | Dickerson: identification insufficient — no close-in-time in-court ID, no corroborating physical evidence at arrest, clerk earlier refused to ID, tattoos/phone number not provided to police | Court: Evidence sufficient; totality (proximity, prior acquaintance, prompt photo-array ID, vehicle link, consistent descriptors) supports identity beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Weight of the evidence (identification) | Commonwealth: trial judge as factfinder found Abraham credible; refusals at prelim due to fear explained; no reason to disturb exercise of discretion | Dickerson: verdict against weight because identification was conflicting/incredible (saw only eyes/nose; preliminary hearing refusal) | Court: No abuse of discretion; weight claim fails — trial judge reasonably credited identification and fear-based prelim refusal |
| Possessing instrument of crime (firearm) | Commonwealth: handgun pointed inches from face, used to effect robbery — establishes possession and intent to employ criminally | Dickerson: challenges sufficiency of proof re possession/intent | Held: Evidence sufficient to prove possession and criminal intent |
| Conspiracy to commit robbery | Commonwealth: joint entry, coordinated conduct, overt act (complete robbery) support conspiracy | Dickerson: argues agreement/unidentified co-conspirator not proven | Held: Evidence of agreement, intent, and overt act proven; conviction sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801 (Pa. Super. 2014) (identification reliability factors and sufficiency principles)
- Commonwealth v. Orr, 38 A.3d 868 (Pa. Super. 2011) (identification need not be positive and certain; factors to assess reliability)
- Commonwealth v. Bruce, 717 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Super. 1998) (totality of circumstances test for identifications)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007) (single witness identification can be sufficient)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (standard and deference for weight-of-the-evidence review)