Com. v. King, M., 2275 EDA 2021

Background

April 29, 2018: a three-person shootout near Shelbourne Street; surveillance video showed two men firing at a third (King), who raised his left arm into his jacket pocket and smoke appeared from the pocket. No guns were recovered at the scene.
A gunshot victim arrived at Temple Hospital in a blue Toyota Matrix; officers matched the hospital victim’s clothing to the person in the video and found gunshot residue on King’s hands.
Police secured and later obtained a warrant to search the Toyota; the search produced a black puffy jacket (hole/blown-out pocket) and a blue-and-white track jacket with a ripped/right pocket; blood was also recovered from the vehicle.
King stipulated he was a person prohibited from possessing firearms; convicted by jury of violating 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105 and sentenced to 6–12 years’ imprisonment; post-sentence motion (weight) denied.
Appeal practice issues led to nunc pro tunc reinstatement of King’s direct appeal rights; Superior Court considered sufficiency/weight, suppression, prosecutorial-misconduct/fabrication, and discretionary-sentencing claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth)	Defendant's Argument (King)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence / constructive possession	Circumstantial evidence (video, GSR, jackets with holes, casings at scene) permits inference King constructively possessed and fired a gun	Video was grainy; GSR could be from attackers; jacket testimony inconsistent; ballistics inconclusive	Affirmed: evidence sufficient; constructive possession proven by totality of circumstances
Weight of the evidence	Jury verdict reasonable given evidence and credibility determinations	Verdict shocks the conscience given inconsistencies and weak evidence	Denied: trial court did not palpably abuse discretion in rejecting weight claim
Suppression — vehicle/hospital searches	Police secured vehicle, obtained search warrant, and lawfully searched; testimony credited at suppression hearing	Police conducted a warrantless search and detectives gave inconsistent/testimonially false accounts of jacket recovery	Denied: suppression court credited detectives; record supports warranted search; appellate review limited to suppression-hearing evidence
Prosecutorial misconduct / fabricated evidence/perjury	Evidence and testimony were properly admitted; any inconsistencies were credibility issues for jury	Commonwealth knowingly presented false/fabricated testimony and evidence (jackets, Agudo’s observation of smoke, ballistics)	Waived (no trial objection); meritless under preserved record; no relief granted
Discretionary aspects of sentence	Court considered PSI, sentencing guidelines, prior record, offense gravity; sentence within guideline range	Sentence excessive; court failed to consider mitigating factors and rehabilitation	Waived (not raised at sentencing/post-sentence); alternatively no relief — court considered factors and imposed guideline-range sentence

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Sebolka, 205 A.3d 329 (establishes sufficiency review standard and deference to factfinder)
Commonwealth v. Jones, 874 A.2d 108 (constructive possession requires dominion/control and intent; may be inferred)
Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31 (circumstantial evidence may prove constructive possession)
Commonwealth v. Ford, 175 A.3d 985 (standard of review on suppression rulings; appellate scope limited to suppression-hearing evidence)
Commonwealth v. Koonce, 190 A.3d 1204 (suppression-review deference to suppression court's credibility findings)
Commonwealth v. Small, 741 A.2d 666 (weight-of-the-evidence standard; credibility for factfinder)
Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (appellate review limited to palpable abuse where trial court ruled on weight claim)
Commonwealth v. Watson, 228 A.3d 928 (presumption that sentencing court considered PSI and relevant factors)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (sentencing court's awareness of defendant's character where PSI exists)