Com. v. Simpkins, S., Com. v. Simpkins, S. No. 742 EDA 2016

On November 3, 2014, Omar Robbins‑Morris was walking to work in Philadelphia when Shamir Simpkins confronted and struck him, breaking his glasses and causing a nosebleed.
During the altercation Simpkins grabbed Robbins‑Morris’s open book bag, threw it across the street, and later followed him to a corner store where he told Robbins‑Morris to give him the bag or he would not leave.
Robbins‑Morris later discovered his headphones and scientific calculator missing; those items were not recovered and were not found on Simpkins when arrested.
Simpkins was tried non‑jury and convicted of second‑degree robbery, simple assault, and criminal mischief; acquitted of terroristic threats and recklessly endangering another.
Trial court sentenced Simpkins to 3 years’ probation for robbery. Appellant appealed on sufficiency grounds, arguing the Commonwealth failed to prove he acted "in the course of committing a theft" or had intent to permanently deprive.
Trial court and Superior Court reviewed the record, found the evidence (including threats to keep the bag and conduct designed to separate the victim from his belongings) sufficient to infer intent to deprive, and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove robbery — i.e., that defendant acted "in the course of committing a theft" with intent to deprive the victim of property	Commonwealth: conduct (grabbing/throwing bag, following, demanding bag, threats to leave only if bag given) supports inference of intent to steal or to effect a theft attempt, satisfying the robbery element	Simpkins: conduct was a fight; no proof he intended to steal — at most assault/criminal mischief; items could have fallen from the already‑open bag	Court: Affirmed — viewing evidence in favor of Commonwealth, the continuum of force and demand for the bag supported a reasonable inference of intent to deprive and an act in furtherance of a theft, so robbery conviction was sustainable

Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998 (Pa. Super. 2003) (sets sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard on appeal)
Commonwealth v. Gooding, 818 A.2d 546 (Pa. Super. 2003) (same sufficiency principles referenced)
Commonwealth v. Jannett, 58 A.3d 818 (Pa. Super. 2012) (recites robbery statutory elements)
Commonwealth v. Ennis, 574 A.2d 1116 (Pa. Super. 1990) (discusses theft/attempt elements and robbery requirement that injury/threat occur in course of theft)
Commonwealth v. Pond, 846 A.2d 699 (Pa. Super. 2004) (intent to steal may be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Matthews, 870 A.2d 924 (Pa. Super. 2005) (Commonwealth may prove intent circumstantially and need not produce direct proof of mens rea)
Commonwealth v. Winger, 957 A.2d 325 (Pa. Super. 2008) (totality‑of‑circumstances approach to infer intent and evaluate circumstantial evidence)