Opinion
J-S78017-12 No. 864 MDA 21012
02-26-2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. RAUL MARQUEZ Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 30, 2009
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0005358-2008
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and ALLEN, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.
Appellant, Raul Marquez, appeals nunc pro tunc from the judgment of sentence entered July 30, 2009, by the Honorable John A. Boccabella, Court of Common Pleas of Berks County. We affirm.
Although Marquez purports to appeal from the order denying his nunc pro tunc post-sentence motion entered April 5, 2012, his appeal properly lies from the judgment of sentence entered July 30, 2009. We have amended the caption accordingly.
As we write exclusively for the parties, we provide only so much of the facts and procedural history as is necessary to our analysis. Following a jury trial, on June 5, 2009, Marquez was convicted of murder in the first degree, murder in the third degree, aggravated assault, possessing instruments of crime, four counts of recklessly endangering another person, and conspiracy. The convictions arose out of the shooting death of Terrell Little. On July 30, 2009, the trial court sentenced Marquez to life imprisonment. Marquez filed a direct appeal on September 4, 2009, which this Court subsequently quashed as untimely.
For a detailed recitation of the facts and procedural history of this case, we direct the reader to Judge Boccabella's memorandum opinion affirming Marquez's judgment of sentence. Trial Court Opinion, 7/26/12 at 1-7.
--------
Marquez filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act on January 3, 2011. On February 3, 2012, by agreement with the Commonwealth, the PCRA court reinstated Marquez's appellate rights nunc pro tunc. On January 30, 2012, Marquez filed a post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. This nunc pro tunc appeal followed.
On appeal, Marquez raises the following issues for our review:
A. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying [Marquez's] Post-Sentence Motion where it is contrary to justice to believe that the jury found credibility in the testimony of Migdalia Alvarez as she could not have seen the shooting, her account of the shooting was stale, and her report of the shooting to the police was the product of her desire to avoid lengthy incarceration?Appellant's Brief at 5.
B. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying [Marquez's] Post-Sentence Motion where it is contrary to justice to believe that the jury found credibility in the testimony of Kaleena Sculco (nee Crawley) where she was a jilted ex-girlfriend of [Marquez], she admitted to filing a false report with the police, she actively thwarted police questioning for years with her lies, her report to the police was stale, and her report to the police was clearly driven by her own desire to avoid incarceration?
C. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in denying [Marquez's] Pretrial Motion to Sever, thereby denying [Marquez] a fair trial and prejudicing [Marquez], where the codefendants
would necessarily present clearly conflicting and antagonistic defenses at trial?
D. Whether the evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law to convict [Marquez] of Counts 1-3, 5-11, and 13-16 of the Information filed of record: Murder - First Degree, Murder - Third Degree, Aggravated Assault, Recklessly Endangering Another Person, and Criminal Conspiracy to all of these charges, where the evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that [Marquez] was the shooter?
With our standards of review in mind, and after examining the briefs of the parties, the decision of the trial court, as well as the applicable law, we find that Judge Boccabella's ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error. We further find that the trial court ably and methodically addressed Marquez's issues raised on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Boccabella's thorough and well-written memorandum opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 7/26/12.
Judgment affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.