Commonwealth v. Tejada
107 A.3d 788
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On Jan. 2, 2012, two separate purse robberies occurred in Philadelphia within about 20 minutes; victims described a short, light‑skinned Latino gunman and a noisy, old black Honda getaway car.
- Police located the identified Honda shortly after and observed Tejada exiting the driver’s seat; stolen property from the victims was recovered in the vehicle and an upstairs bedroom of the residence tied to the car.
- One witness (Thurston) identified Tejada at the scene as the gunman who robbed Evans; she later could not identify him in court (his appearance had changed) but identified him from his arrest photo. Other victims identified the Honda and recovered items but not Tejada in person.
- A jury convicted Tejada of two counts of criminal conspiracy to commit robbery but acquitted him of the underlying robbery and firearm offenses.
- Trial court sentenced Tejada to consecutive 4–8 year terms (aggregate 8–16 years). Post‑sentence relief was denied; Tejada appealed raising sufficiency/weight of the evidence, evidentiary challenge to photo identification, and discretionary sentencing claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Tejada) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy convictions | Evidence (in person ID by Thurston at scene, photo ID from night, victims’ identification of the Honda, recovered property in car/house) permits conviction | Tejada argued evidence only placed him at scene; identification was unreliable and insufficient to prove he was a conspirator | Affirmed — viewed in Commonwealth’s favor, direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to link Tejada to conspiracies |
| Weight of the evidence | Jury could credit Thurston’s ID and circumstantial links; verdict not shocking | Juror should have discounted inconsistent ID testimony (failed in‑court ID; reliance on jawline/photo) and acquitted | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; credibility determinations are for jury |
| Admissibility/use of arrest photograph for in‑court ID | Photo admissible because Tejada changed appearance; witness could identify from photograph | Photo was tainted by prior suggestive show‑up and was improperly used to identify defendant at trial | Partly waived (did not raise show‑up claim at trial); otherwise admissible — no abuse of discretion in permitting photo ID due to change in appearance |
| Discretionary aspects of sentencing | N/A (Commonwealth opposed review) | Sentencing was excessive; court misapplied guidelines, dismissed mitigation, applied deadly‑weapon enhancement improperly | Claims waived — Tejada failed to raise specific sentencing arguments at sentencing or in post‑sentence motion; Melendez‑Rodriguez precludes preserving such claims first in a 1925(b) statement |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Murray, 83 A.3d 137 (Pa. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Melendez‑Rodriguez, 856 A.2d 1278 (Pa. Super. 2004) (issues not preserved at trial cannot be saved by raising them for first time in a Rule 1925(b) statement)
- Commonwealth v. Egan, 679 A.2d 237 (Pa. Super. 1996) (earlier panel allowed preservation of some sentencing claims via 1925(b))
- Commonwealth v. Clinton, 683 A.2d 1236 (Pa. Super. 1996) (distinguishing Egan; sentencing discretion claims must be raised at sentencing or post‑sentence motion)
- Commonwealth v. Grillasco, 415 A.2d 1241 (Pa. Super. 1979) (photo ID remote in time is insufficient where in‑court ID is absent)
- Commonwealth v. Duca, 165 A. 825 (Pa. 1933) (photographic ID permissible when defendant changed appearance)