Com. v. Ortiz, W
3301 EDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- On July 5, 2011, multiple gunshots were fired on Amber/Ann/Bellmore Streets in Philadelphia; several people and property were struck and numerous cartridge casings were recovered. Three wounded persons were stipulated: Angel Rodriguez, two‑year‑old Sianie (Pena), and William Ortiz (appellant).
- Witnesses and police testimony placed Ortiz on the corner and indicated he was seen with or dropped a gun after being shot; other witnesses gave inconsistent statements at trial versus earlier statements to police.
- Ortiz was tried by jury and convicted of multiple counts including four counts of aggravated assault, PIC (possession of an instrument of crime), possession of a firearm prohibited, and related firearm offenses; he received an aggregate sentence of 36 to 72 years.
- Ortiz filed post‑sentence motions (denied by operation of law) and appealed raising weight and sufficiency challenges to several convictions, a claim his 15–30 year aggravated assault term exceeded the statutory maximum, and a prosecutorial‑misconduct/mistrial claim.
- The trial court denied relief on the weight and sufficiency claims, agreed the 15–30 year term exceeded the statutory maximum, and the Superior Court affirmed convictions but vacated that sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Verdict against the weight of the evidence / new trial | Ortiz: jury verdict shocks justice because witnesses placed him in the corner store (so not a shooter) and his wound pattern shows he was a bystander | Commonwealth: credibility resolves inconsistencies; jury entitled to accept or reject testimony; wounds consistent with being involved or wounded during shootout | Trial court and Superior Court: no abuse of discretion; weight claim denied |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence (Medina and Castro counts) | Ortiz: no proof Medina or Castro were present or targeted; no eyewitness ID showing Ortiz was a shooter | Commonwealth: circumstantial evidence (witness statements, dropping gun/clang, casings, arrests) supports intent to shoot into group that included Medina and Castro | Court: evidence sufficient circumstantially to support aggravated assault convictions as to intended victims Medina and Castro |
| 3. Sufficiency of evidence (Rodriguez and Sianie Pena injuries) | Ortiz: acquittal on conspiracy and lack of direct proof he fired the shots that struck Rodriguez or Pena precludes liability | Commonwealth: firing multiple rounds into a crowded street shows extreme indifference; circumstantial evidence supports that shots from Ortiz’s group caused the injuries | Court: circumstantial evidence sufficient; aggravated assault convictions affirmed |
| 4. Legality of 15–30 year aggravated assault sentence | Ortiz: statutory maximum for the offense is 20 years, so 15–30 exceeds statutory maximum | Commonwealth & trial court: agree the sentence exceeded statutory maximum and resentencing is required; request remand for full resentencing to preserve scheme | Superior Court: vacated the 15–30 year term and remanded for resentencing on all counts |
| 5. Prosecutorial misconduct / mistrial for "send a message" remark | Ortiz: prosecutor’s closing asked jury to “tell [appellant] it’s not okay…” and warranted mistrial | Commonwealth: remark analogous to Patton; not reversible because not so prejudicial as to deny fair trial | Court: remark inappropriate but not so prejudicial; denial of mistrial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Kim, 888 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for weight‑of‑evidence review)
- Commonwealth v. Davis, 799 A.2d 860 (Pa. Super. 2002) (new‑trial weight motion concedes sufficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Jarowecki, 923 A.2d 425 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appellate review limits on weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Keaton, 729 A.2d 529 (Pa. 1999) (credibility determinations for jury)
- Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2000) (sufficiency standard; view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 82 A.3d 943 (Pa. 2013) (circumstantial‑evidence sufficiency principles)
- Commonwealth v. Daniels, 354 A.2d 538 (Pa. 1976) (firing into crowd can support aggravated assault by reckless indifference)
- Commonwealth v. Goldhammer, 517 A.2d 1280 (Pa. 1986) (remand for resentencing on multiple bills when sentencing scheme affected)
- Commonwealth v. Patton, 985 A.2d 1283 (Pa. 2009) ("send a message" prosecutorial remarks not per se reversible)