Com. v. Wideman, A., Com. v. Wideman, A. No. 568 EDA 2016

On July 15, 2014, Jane Piersall encountered Antoine Wideman and three others outside her home after shopping; a verbal confrontation ensued when she told them to move from in front of her house.
During the first encounter, Wideman took Piersall’s phone, the group laughed and left together, and one male threatened future violence while gesturing as if showing a gun.
A short time later Piersall saw the group again; Wideman crossed the street, struck her in the face with a small black handgun, then punched her; the other male and two women joined, punching and kicking Piersall and assaulting her daughters.
Piersall was treated at a hospital for facial, wrist, and arm injuries.
After a non-jury trial Wideman was convicted of multiple offenses, including criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault; he was sentenced to an aggregate 51 to 102 months’ imprisonment plus three years’ probation and ordered to pay $150 restitution.
Wideman appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy; his discretionary-sentencing claim was deemed waived for failure to properly preserve it in the statement of questions involved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction for criminal conspiracy to commit aggravated assault	Commonwealth: circumstantial and direct evidence (group conduct before, during, after assault) show unity of purpose and agreement to commit aggravated assault	Wideman: second encounter escalated so quickly there was no opportunity to form an agreement to conspire	Court affirmed: evidence (concerted actions, prior statements, joint flight/arrival, joint attack) sufficient to establish conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt
Discretionary aspects of sentence	Commonwealth: (implicitly) sentence within court authority	Wideman: challenges discretionary aspects of sentence on appeal	Waived: issue not properly preserved in statement of questions involved, so appellate review of discretionary sentencing claim denied

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 137 A.3d 611 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 65 A.3d 939 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definitions of conspiracy proof and aggravated assault elements)
Commonwealth v. French, 578 A.2d 1292 (Pa. Super. 1990) (group acting in concert before, during, after attack supports conspiracy)
Commonwealth v. Poland, 26 A.3d 518 (Pa. Super. 2011) (acting together before, during, and after assault establishes unity of criminal purpose)