Com. v. Henderson, S.
Com. v. Henderson, S. No. 812 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 28, 2017Background
- On December 27, 2011, Jason Bradford was seated in his car when two men approached; one (Locke) entered, exited, handed a silver semi-automatic to the other (Henderson), who then shot Bradford multiple times at close range.
- Bradford identified the shooter (Henderson) from hospital photo arrays; a third-party (Dejonnaise Carr) identified Henderson from a publicly posted video by his gait and clothing.
- Stefon Locke ("Boog") pleaded guilty and told police he entered the car to sell marijuana, exited, then Henderson briefly entered, pointed a gun and began firing.
- Police later executed a warrant at Henderson’s mother’s home and found a phone with gun photos and photos of Locke; Henderson was also arrested after discarding a loaded pistol while fleeing officers in April 2013.
- A jury convicted Henderson of attempted murder, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit robbery, possession of an instrument of crime, carrying firearms without a license, and persons not to possess firearms; he was acquitted of robbery.
- The court sentenced Henderson to consecutive terms totaling 22 to 44 years. He appealed challenging (1) sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder and conspiracy and (2) sentence legality/excessiveness. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Henderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder | Evidence (victim ID, video, eyewitness corroboration, severe wounds) shows Henderson shot Bradford with intent to kill | Insufficient proof of specific intent to kill | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence and wounds to vital areas support intent to kill and attempted murder conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal conspiracy to commit robbery | Locke’s guilty plea, coordinated actions (entry, handing gun, statement “you know what this is,” joint flight) show agreement and overt act | No proof of agreement/shared intent to rob | Affirmed: agreement inferred from conduct and relation; overt act proved |
| Legality of sentence (alleged sentencing for robbery despite acquittal) | Sentencing order and docket reflect sentence for conspiracy, not robbery | Court mistakenly referred to "robbery" at hearing | Affirmed: written sentence controls; oral slip irrelevant |
| Excessiveness/consecutive sentencing | Sentence within court’s discretion given violence and PSR | Sentence excessive and improperly consecutive | No relief: appellate review waived (no Rule 2119(f) or preservation); alternatively, sentence reasonable given severity |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536 (Pa. Super. 2015) (sufficiency review standard)
- Commonwealth v. Tucker, 143 A.3d 955 (Pa. Super. 2016) (use of deadly weapon on vital part supports intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Rega, 933 A.2d 997 (Pa. 2007) (deadly weapon on vital part permits inference of intent to kill)
- Commonwealth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025 (Pa. 2007) (same principle regarding inference of intent from weapon use)
- Commonwealth v. Devine, 26 A.3d 1139 (Pa. Super. 2011) (elements of criminal conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 847 A.2d 67 (Pa. Super. 2004) (agreement to conspire may be inferred from circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Evans, 901 A.2d 528 (Pa. Super. 2006) (discretionary sentencing review and preservation requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Goggins, 748 A.2d 721 (Pa. Super. 2000) (Rule 2119(f) content requirements)