Com. v. Walker, A., 1308 WDA 2020

Background

On May 24, 2019, Kristopher Capron was found on a Pittsburgh sidewalk with multiple gunshot wounds after leaving a bar; shell casings and bullet fragments were recovered.
Capron identified his shooter as a Black male with dreadlocks wearing a white T‑shirt and green shorts; police later stopped Andre Jamal Walker and recovered a stolen .38 caliber semi‑automatic from his backpack (empty).
At trial Capron testified Walker shot him after being repeatedly questioned about sexual orientation and after an outside confrontation; Walker alternatively claimed he fired warning shots in self‑defense because he felt threatened and harassed.
The Commonwealth charged Walker with attempted homicide, aggravated assault, and receiving stolen property; the jury convicted on aggravated assault only.
Walker was sentenced to 4½ to 9 years’ incarceration plus 5 years’ probation; he appealed arguing insufficiency and weight of the evidence and discretionary sentencing error.

Issues

Issue	Commonwealth's Argument	Walker's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault	Commonwealth disproved self‑defense; evidence showed intentional/reckless use of deadly force against an unarmed victim and ability to retreat	Walker acted in self‑defense and fired only warning shots; no intent to cause serious bodily injury and injuries not "serious"	Affirmed. Viewing evidence in Commonwealth's favor, jury could infer intent/recklessness; self‑defense disproved because victim was unarmed and retreat was possible
Weight of the evidence	Conflicts in testimony (e.g., number of shots) are for the jury; physical evidence supports multiple shots and conviction	Trial testimony and physical evidence were contradictory and too tenuous to support verdict	Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion; credibility and conflicts are jury matters and do not shock the conscience
Discretionary aspects of sentence	Sentence within standard guideline range; court reviewed PSI and considered relevant factors	Sentence manifestly excessive; court focused only on seriousness of the crime and ignored mitigating factors	Affirmed. Standard‑range sentence presumed appropriate; PSI review indicates court considered sentencing factors; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Burns, 765 A.2d 1144 (Pa. Super. 2000) (standard for sufficiency review and viewing evidence in light most favorable to the Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. 2008) (intent to cause serious bodily injury may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
Commonwealth v. Miller, 955 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. 2008) (malice/recklessness element for aggravated assault explained)
Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 53 A.3d 738 (Pa. 2012) (elements of self‑defense when deadly force used)
Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 55 A.3d 1108 (Pa. 2012) (Commonwealth bears burden to disprove self‑defense beyond a reasonable doubt)
Commonwealth v. Truong, 36 A.3d 592 (Pa. Super. 2012) (Commonwealth may show defendant used more force than reasonably necessary)
Commonwealth v. Patterson, 180 A.3d 1217 (Pa. Super. 2018) (disproving self‑defense where defendant shot an unarmed victim despite ability to retreat)
Commonwealth v. Houser, 18 A.3d 1128 (Pa. 2011) (standard for reviewing weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
Commonwealth v. Ventura, 975 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2009) (presumption that a sentencing court informed by a PSI considered appropriate factors)
Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard‑range guideline sentences are generally viewed as appropriate)
Commonwealth v. Devers, 546 A.2d 12 (Pa. 1988) (when court considers PSI, it is presumed aware of appropriate sentencing factors)
Commonwealth v. Tharp, 830 A.2d 519 (Pa. 2003) (verdict not contrary to weight simply because of testimonial conflicts)
Commonwealth v. Flowers, 149 A.3d 867 (Pa. Super. 2016) (courts need not provide lengthy sentencing explanations but record must show consideration of crime and offender)