Commonwealth v. Trinidad, 96 A.3d 1031

On December 27, 2008, Robert Rosado was shot and seriously injured; he later identified Hector Trinidad as the shooter. Trinidad was tried for attempted murder, aggravated assault, and conspiracy and convicted after a jury trial in June 2012.
At trial the Commonwealth introduced a detective’s testimony recounting an out-of-court recorded statement by Bryan Mejias implicating Trinidad in an earlier murder (offered to explain police investigation and motive); Trinidad objected on hearsay grounds.
After sentencing (September 5, 2012), Trinidad’s counsel filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(C) post-sentence motion (Sept. 27, 2012) asserting newly discovered evidence: testimony from Danny Ruiz recounting that Rosado said the shooter was a Black male and that prosecutors pressured him to identify Trinidad.
The trial court held a hearing, denied the post-sentence motion on January 17, 2013, and Trinidad filed a timely appeal on February 5, 2013. The Superior Court addressed jurisdiction/timeliness and the merits.
The Superior Court held the Rule 720(C) motion was filed promptly after discovery (thus tolled the appeal period under Rule 720(A)(2)), upheld admission of the detective’s testimony (not hearsay when offered to show police conduct), denied the new-trial motion (Ruiz’s evidence was impeachment), found the evidence sufficient (Rosado’s identification alone sufficed), and deemed Trinidad’s discretionary-sentencing claim waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Trinidad)	Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth)	Held
Admissibility of detective’s recounting of Mejias’ recorded statement	Testimony was inadmissible hearsay	Offered not for truth but to explain police conduct and show motive	Admissible to show course of police investigation; not hearsay for that purpose (motive basis addressed in concurrence but deemed harmless)
Denial of new trial based on after-discovered evidence (Ruiz)	Ruiz’s testimony about Rosado’s out-of-court statements would impeach Rosado and likely change verdict	Evidence is impeachment only and insufficient to require new trial	Denied — evidence was impeachment/cumulative and did not meet Lyons factors for new trial
Sufficiency of evidence identifying Trinidad as shooter	Rosado’s credibility was unreliable (criminal history, drug use, inconsistent statements) so evidence insufficient	Rosado’s positive ID was sufficient; credibility goes to weight, not sufficiency	Affirmed — viewing evidence in Commonwealth’s favor, Rosado’s identification was sufficient for conviction
Challenge to consecutive sentence (running with prior sentence)	Consecutive sentence was an abuse of discretion	Sentencing court acted within discretion given facts and criminal history	Waived for appellate review (failed to preserve at sentencing and omitted Rule 2119(f)); alternatively, no abuse of discretion

Commonwealth v. Dreves, 839 A.2d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en banc) (untimely post-sentence motions do not toll appeal period)
Commonwealth v. Chmiel, 889 A.2d 501 (Pa. 2005) (out-of-court statements explaining police conduct are not hearsay when offered for that purpose)
Commonwealth v. Weiss, 81 A.3d 767 (Pa. 2013) (same principle regarding statements explaining police action)
Commonwealth v. Lyons, 79 A.3d 1053 (Pa. 2013) (standards for new trial based on after-discovered evidence)
Commonwealth v. Bormack, 827 A.2d 503 (Pa. Super. 2003) (after-discovered impeachment evidence does not necessarily warrant new trial)
Commonwealth v. Emler, 903 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for sufficiency review)
Commonwealth v. Wilder, 393 A.2d 927 (Pa. Super. 1978) (single eyewitness positive identification may support conviction)
Commonwealth v. Cook, 941 A.2d 7 (Pa. Super. 2007) (procedural prerequisites for discretionary-sentencing review)
Commonwealth v. Passmore, 857 A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. 2004) (harmless-error framework for evaluating erroneously admitted evidence)
Commonwealth v. Anderson, 830 A.2d 1013 (Pa. Super. 2003) (failure to include Rule 2119(f) statement can waive discretionary-sentencing challenge)