Com. v. Gonzalez, J.
Com. v. Gonzalez, J. No. 2653 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 16, 2017Background
- On Dec. 30, 2014 Jose Gonzalez and two companions ("Boo" and Michael) forced entry into Denice Davilla’s Philadelphia apartment where multiple adults and children were present. Boo brandished a knife and Michael had a baseball bat. Gonzalez stood by the door and allegedly prevented occupants from leaving.
- Boo punched and attempted to stab victim Leslie (Mr. Negron); occupants intervened; the intruders were persuaded to leave when Mr. Toler claimed to know the whereabouts of a woman Boo sought.
- Outside the building Gonzalez took Boo’s knife and discarded it; the knife was recovered by police and admitted at trial.
- Trial court (bench trial, May 27, 2015) convicted Gonzalez of multiple offenses including aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit aggravated assault, burglary, and related offenses; sentencing (Aug. 3, 2015): aggregate 10–20 years (three concurrent 10-year mandatory minimums).
- On appeal Gonzalez argued (1) insufficiency of evidence—he was merely present, not a principal/accomplice—and (2) verdict against the weight of the evidence; Superior Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s detailed opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Gonzalez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: accomplice liability for aggravated assault, burglary, conspiracies | Evidence (entrance by force, Boo’s knife attacks, Gonzalez guarding door, discarding knife) proves intent and aiding conduct; circumstantial evidence suffices | Gonzalez: he merely was present and did not participate or agree to crimes; insufficient proof of intent/aid | Affirmed—evidence sufficient to infer intent to aid and active participation (accomplice liability). |
| Weight of the evidence | Trial court credited eyewitness testimony and found no basis to disturb verdict | Gonzalez: witness credibility problems; testimony that he only looked mean insufficient | Affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion; verdict did not shock the conscience. |
| Preservation / Rule 1925(b) specificity | Commonwealth notes trial court addressed merits where applicable | Gonzalez’s 1925(b) statement was too generic as to multiple counts and elements | Superior Court held insufficiency/weight claims largely waived for lack of specificity; to the extent preserved, claims fail on the merits. |
| Sentencing (excessive / harsh) | Mandatory 10-year minimums applied under §9714 due to prior violent felony; concurrent sentences imposed | Gonzalez argued sentence harsh/excessive | Affirmed—statutory mandatory minimums required; court gave concurrent (not consecutive) terms and considered PSR; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rega v. Commonwealth, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (defines accomplice liability: intent to aid and active participation required)
- Murphy v. Commonwealth, 844 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2004) (aid need not be substantial; accomplice intent can be inferred)
- Kimbrough v. Commonwealth, 872 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. 2005) (criminal partnership/agreement rarely proved directly; circumstantial evidence of agreement may suffice)
- Gladden v. Commonwealth, 665 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. 1995) (the least degree of assistance can establish accomplice liability)
- Matthew v. Commonwealth, 589 Pa. 487 (Pa. 2006) (standards for aggravated assault and proof of intent to inflict serious bodily injury)
- Tingle v. Commonwealth, 419 A.2d 6 (Pa. Super. 1980) (forceful entry can support inference of contemporaneous intent to commit a crime inside—burglary)
- Gibbs v. Commonwealth, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (Rule 1925(b) specificity requirement for preserving sufficiency/weight claims)