Com. v. Hernandez, C.
651 MDA 2017
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- On Dec. 10, 2012 a Domino’s delivery driver (N.B.) was lured to 522 Birch St. by a call from a prepaid phone; when he arrived three men ambushed him.
- One assailant held a gun to N.B.’s head, another (the shooter) fired, and Appellant Hernandez acted as the front-man, took $15 from N.B.’s pocket, and stood in front of him during the incident.
- N.B. identified Hernandez in a photo array and in-court; cell phone records linked the prepaid number to persons connected to Hernandez.
- A jury convicted Hernandez of aggravated assault, simple assault, robbery, theft, receiving stolen property, disorderly conduct, and multiple counts of conspiracy; acquitted on attempted murder.
- Trial court sentenced Hernandez to aggregate 234 to 720 months’ imprisonment. This Court affirmed on direct appeal in 2014.
- After a PCRA filing, Hernandez’s post-sentence rights were reinstated nunc pro tunc limited to sufficiency and weight claims; the trial court denied his post-sentence motion and Hernandez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault (aiding/shooting) | No evidence Hernandez shot or aided the shooter; shooter acted alone | Circumstantial evidence shows Hernandez lured the victim, assisted the robbery, and was part of conspiracy/accomplice liability | Affirmed — sufficient evidence to convict as accomplice/conspirator |
| Sufficiency of evidence for simple assault | No evidence Hernandez caused or attempted bodily injury | Same as above: accomplice liability supports assault conviction | Affirmed — sufficient evidence |
| Sufficiency for robbery/theft | No proof Hernandez took property from the victim | Victim testified Hernandez took $15; corroborating circumstances | Affirmed — theft/robbery proven |
| Sufficiency/weight for conspiracy convictions and weight claim | No proof of agreement or overt act; identification unreliable due to lighting/distance | Circumstantial proof of agreement (call, ambush, roles) and reliable ID; weight challenge fails | Affirmed — conspiracy proven; trial court did not abuse discretion denying new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Murphy, 844 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2004) (accomplice liability principles)
- Commonwealth v. Bradley, 392 A.2d 688 (Pa. 1978) (accomplice and principal share equal responsibility)
- Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 135 A.3d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2016) (accomplice liability may be proven circumstantially)
- Commonwealth v. Lambert, 795 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Super. 2002) (co-conspirator rule and liability for acts in furtherance of conspiracy)
- Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049 (Pa. 2013) (standard and limits for weight-of-the-evidence motions)