Com. v. Gindraw, S.
1714 MDA 2024
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Shaheed Tariq Gindraw was convicted and sentenced to five to ten years in prison for burglary, aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person (REAP), criminal trespass, defiant trespass, and criminal mischief in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.
- Events occurred on December 26, 2023, at the residence of Valencia Rivera, with whom Gindraw shares children and previously resided, but had been served a trespass notice barring him from the property.
- Rivera made two 911 calls: the first reporting a physical altercation; the second reporting Gindraw’s forced reentry, armed with a firearm. Police and troopers observed physical evidence of forced entry and injuries to Rivera.
- At trial, Rivera recanted her initial statements, suggesting the conflict was mutual and denying use of a weapon by Gindraw, conflicting with prior statements and evidence.
- The jury convicted Gindraw on all counts. He appealed, challenging the sufficiency and weight of the Commonwealth’s evidence and arguing privilege to enter the premises.
- Both the trial and appellate courts found the evidence of guilt overwhelming, upholding the convictions and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for all charges | Commonwealth failed to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence existed, including physical and testimonial evidence. | Evidence was sufficient to support all convictions. |
| Intent to commit a crime (Burglary) | No intent to commit a crime shown; entry was innocent/privileged. | Entry was forced, with intent to commit a bodily injury crime, evidenced by actions. | Sufficient evidence of criminal intent upon entry. |
| Privilege to enter (Trespass/Burglary) | Had reasonable belief of privilege to enter home. | Appellant had received clear notice banning him; privilege revoked by Rivera’s actions. | No privilege or license to enter at the incident time. |
| Weight of the evidence | Verdict was against the weight of evidence, mainly due to Rivera’s trial testimony. | Commonwealth evidence—police, earlier statements—was overwhelming and credible. | Verdict not against weight; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (distinguishes sufficiency and weight of evidence challenges)
- Commonwealth v. Wilamowski, 633 A.2d 141 (Pa. 1993) (burglary intent analysis when forced entry occurs)
- Commonwealth v. Lewis, 911 A.2d 558 (Pa. Super. 2006) (proof of intent for aggravated assault)