Com. v. Rojas, G.
Com. v. Rojas, G. No. 1164 EDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Feb 16, 2017Background
- On Dec. 6, 2012, Philadelphia officers observed Garvin Rojas enter an alley next to a frequently burglarized church and then crouch and drop a heavy metallic object into a plastic trash can.
- Officers turned, stopped at the alley entrance, exited the patrol car, and Officer Castro looked into the trash can and recovered a .41 caliber Ruger Blackhawk revolver loaded with two rounds.
- A records check showed Rojas had no license to carry and the weapon had been reported stolen in New York in 1988.
- Rojas was charged with theft, carrying a firearm without a license (18 Pa.C.S. §6106), and carrying a firearm on a public street in Philadelphia (18 Pa.C.S. §6108). He was convicted of all charges at trial; the theft conviction was later arrested, but the firearm convictions were affirmed.
- On appeal Rojas raised (1) insufficiency of the evidence to prove he possessed the gun and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to litigate a suppression motion for the gun.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession of the gun | Commonwealth: Officer Castro’s observation of Rojas drop a heavy metallic object into the trash can and immediate recovery of the gun supported conviction | Rojas: Police did not see him holding a gun; no physical evidence linking him to the gun; he denied discarding anything | Court: Evidence sufficient — officer’s testimony that Rojas dropped the object and the recovered gun supported convictions when viewed in Commonwealth’s favor |
| Credibility of competing testimony | Commonwealth: Factfinder may credit officer’s testimony over defendant’s | Rojas: Trial court should have believed his account that he never discarded anything and the gun was not his | Court: Credibility is for the factfinder; weight-of-evidence claim fails as sufficiency challenge |
| Suppression/illegal stop | Commonwealth: stop and recovery supported investigatory stop and seizure (trial court resolved related matters) | Rojas: Officer lacked reasonable suspicion; arrest and seizure unlawful; suppression warranted | Court: Declined to decide suppression claim here because ineffective-assistance suppression claim is more properly litigated in PCRA unless meritorious and record-apparent — not shown here |
| Ineffective assistance for not litigating suppression | Commonwealth: procedural default; claim not suitable on direct appeal absent clear, record-based ineffectiveness | Rojas: Counsel ineffective for failing to ensure pretrial suppression motion was heard and ruled on | Court: Deferred ineffective-assistance claim to PCRA review; not addressed on direct appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Lynch, 72 A.3d 706 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for remand and appellate procedure)
- Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction)
- Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 985 A.2d 830 (Pa. 2009) (elements of Sections 6106 and 6108 explained)
- Commonwealth v. Hughes, 908 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. 2006) (sufficiency standard and deference to factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274 (Pa. Super. 2009) (weight vs. sufficiency distinction)
- Commonwealth v. Holmes, 70 A.3d 562 (Pa. 2013) (limits on raising ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)