Com. v. Twyman, I.
Com. v. Twyman, I. No. 924 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- On Oct. 27–28, 2014, victim Carlos Masip reported a robbery and later tracked his stolen phone; police were directed to the tracked location.
- Masip identified Twyman at the Rorer/Hilton corner as one of his earlier assailants; officers ordered Twyman down, he pulled a handgun and fled.
- Officer Taylor chased on foot, saw Twyman make a throwing motion toward trash cans; Officer James tackled and handcuffed Twyman nearby.
- Police recovered a black Glock .40 from a garbage can where Taylor had seen Twyman discard something; Twyman lacked a carry license and was a prohibited person.
- Twyman moved to suppress the firearm, was denied; he waived a jury and the court convicted him of three firearms offenses and sentenced him to 4–8 years’ incarceration + 5 years’ probation.
- Twyman appealed raising (A) weight of the evidence, (B) sufficiency, (C) suppression/illegal seizure, and (D) discretionary sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Twyman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight of the evidence | Trial court credited officers; verdict should stand | Testimony conflicted; recovery of gun uncertain — weight against verdict | Waived for failure to preserve; even on merits, no relief — court credited officers and rejected claim |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Officer testimony and recovered gun suffice to prove possession beyond reasonable doubt | No fingerprints/DNA; circumstantial and inconsistent testimony leaves reasonable doubt | Evidence sufficient; no DNA requirement; eyewitness and discard/recovery support possession finding |
| Suppression — reasonable suspicion/seizure | Masip’s robbery report, phone tracking, ID of Twyman, and officers’ observation of gun supplied reasonable suspicion; abandonment lawful | Stop/chase were illegal; discarded gun was fruit of unlawful seizure (Matos) | Stop/detention proper (investigative stop supported by reasonable suspicion); abandonment not tainted by illegal police conduct; suppression denied |
| Discretionary sentencing | Court considered PSI and mitigation; within guideline range and not an abuse of discretion | Court failed to weigh rehabilitative needs, family support, impact on son, employment — sentence excessive | No abuse of discretion; court had PSI and considered mitigating factors; sentence within mitigated guideline range |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Champney, 832 A.2d 403 (Pa. 2003) (standard for appellate review of weight claims)
- Commonwealth v. Vargas, 108 A.3d 858 (Pa. Super. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Matos, 672 A.2d 769 (Pa. 1996) (police illegality can taint abandoned evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (presumption that court considered sentencing factors when informed by PSI)
- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (what constitutes a substantial question for discretionary sentencing review)