The opinion
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ABDULLAH MAURICE PROCTOR :
:
Appellant : No. 2446 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 4, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0009909-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ABDULLAH MAURICE PROCTOR :
:
Appellant : No. 2466 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 4, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0008511-2017
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
Appellant, Abdullah Maurice Proctor, appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered on April 4, 2019, as made final by the denial of Appellant’s
post-sentence motion on July 23, 2019. We affirm.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case.
On the morning of July 30, 2016, on the 3100 Block of North
Sheridan Street, [Appellant] approached the victim, Donte
Williams, wearing a black T-shirt over his face. Williams was
sitting on a milk crate in view of a surveillance camera from
a nearby grocery store located at 625 West Clearfield Street.
As [Appellant] approached, [Appellant] pulled out a 9-mm
Kel-Tec handgun and began shooting at Williams. Williams
started to run and [Appellant] followed him, continuing to
shoot. The victim ultimately ran into an alleyway, where
[Appellant] continued to shoot. [Appellant] then ran down
Sheridan Street toward Clearfield Street. Williams was
transported to Temple Hospital, where he died later that
morning. Williams suffered four gunshot wounds. One
wound was to the left eye, one to the abdomen, one to the
right knee, and one to the left hand. The medical examiner
determined that the victim's cause of death was multiple
gunshot wounds and the manner was homicide.
Officers arrived to process the scene around 12:17 p.m.
Officers recovered from the scene lead and copper fragments,
fired cartridge casings, a 9-mm live round, and a projectile.
At around 2:30 p.m. that same day, Tasha Bukton was
walking down Clearfield Street and saw [Appellant], who was
known to Bukton as "Dulla," with an individual known to her
as "Lil Book." Bukton grew up in the same neighborhood as
[Appellant] and knew him for most of his life. Bukton
observed Lil Book pass a gun to [Appellant] and heard Lil
Book tell [Appellant] to “clean it off” and get rid of it. Bukton
then saw [Appellant] take out the clip and wipe it off with his
shirt.
Less than three hours later, at approximately 5:20 p.m.,
Officer Michael James was on routine patrol with his partner
on the 3100 block of North Darien Street when he observed
[Appellant] walking with another male, later identified as
Shakur Brown. Officer James got out of his patrol car and
attempted to follow [Appellant] and Brown on foot. As Officer
James approached the two men, [Appellant] and the other
male walked behind a blue Ford Expedition parked on the
east side of 3100 Darien Street. Officer James observed
-2-
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
Brown throw a firearm over a fence and [Appellant] place
another firearm inside the Expedition's wheel well. Officer
James arrested [Appellant] after police radio reported that
[Appellant] did not have a valid license to carry a firearm.
The firearm thrown over the fence was determined to be a
9-mm Kel-Tec handgun, later matched to the projectiles
taken from the victim's body as well as the fired cartridge
cases recovered at the scene on Sheridan Street.
At the time of his arrest, [Appellant] was wearing a black
short-sleeved T-shirt with the words "bullet world" written on
the top, a blue denim long-sleeved shirt, a green jacket, and
a white sleeveless T-shirt. These items were brought to the
chemical lab, where the black T-shirt and the white sleeveless
T-shirt were tested for presence of gunshot residue. Gunshot
residue was found on [Appellant’s] black short-sleeved
T-shirt.
Sometime after the incident, detectives met with Bukton and
showed her the surveillance footage from the camera at 625
West Clearfield Street. At that time, she identified
[Appellant] as the person in the video shooting at the
decedent.
While [Appellant] was incarcerated following his arrest, he
told his cellmate, Larry Maddox, that he had shot an
individual using a 9-mm Kel-Tec handgun on Sheridan Street.
According to Maddox, [Appellant] said that the person he had
shot had previously shot [Appellant], causing [Appellant] to
walk with a limp. [Appellant] described the shooting in detail,
telling Maddox that he had seen the individual who had shot
him on Sheridan Street, walked up to him and began
shooting. [Appellant] also told Maddox that when the victim
began to run he followed him continuing to shoot, eventually
ending up in an alleyway. [Appellant] told Maddox that he
had "smoked" the victim.
...
On April 4, 2019, following a jury trial . . . [Appellant] was
convicted at docket number CP-51-CR-0008511-2017
[(hereinafter “Docket 8511-2017”)] of one count of murder
of the first degree, one count of carrying a firearm without a
license, and one count of possessing an instrument of a
-3-
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
crime,1 and at docket number CP-51-CR-0009909-2016
[(hereinafter “Docket 9909-2016”)], of a second count of
carrying a firearm without a license.2 The [trial] court
immediately imposed the mandatory sentence of life in prison
for the first-degree murder charge. The [trial] court also
imposed concurrent sentences [for the remaining charges].
. . . [Appellant] filed [a post-sentence motion at Docket
8511-2017 (but not at Docket 9909-2016), where he
challenged the weight of the evidence supporting his
convictions at Docket 8511-2017. The trial court denied
Appellant’s post-sentence motion and Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal.]
Trial Court Opinion, 11/25/19, at 2-4 (citations and some capitalization
omitted).
Appellant raises one claim on appeal:
Is [Appellant] entitled to an arrest of judgment and/or new
trial in the above-captioned matter on the ground that the
jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence in light
of: (1) the inability of witness Tasha Bukton, aka Tahjai
Wara, to see the shooter’s face in the video of the incident,
(2) the fact that [the] shooter was not limping in the video,
(3) Ms. Bukton lying under oath on multiple occasions
regarding her name, (4) the obvious motive of witness Larry
Maddox to lie to curry favor with the Commonwealth, and (5)
the failure of police to exclude Shakour Brown as a suspect
after he was caught with the murder weapon?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
As our Supreme Court explained:
A motion for a new trial based on a claim that the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the
discretion of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502, 6106(a)(1), and 907(a), respectively.
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6106(a)(1).
-4-
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the
judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different
conclusion. Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine
that notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly
of greater weight that to ignore them or to give them equal
weight with all the facts is to deny justice. It has often been
stated that a new trial should be awarded when the
[factfinder’s] verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to
shock one's sense of justice and the award of a new trial is
imperative so that right may be given another opportunity to
prevail.
Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1054-1055 (Pa. 2013) (quotations
and citations omitted).
“An appellate court's standard of review when presented with a weight
of the evidence claim is distinct from the standard of review applied by the
trial court.” Id. at 1055. Our Supreme Court summarized:
Appellate review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise
of discretion, not of the underlying question of whether the
verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Because the
trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the
evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest
consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the
trial judge when reviewing a trial court's determination that
the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. One of the
least assailable reasons for granting or denying a new trial is
the lower court's conviction that the verdict was or was not
against the weight of the evidence and that a new trial should
be granted in the interest of justice.
This does not mean that the exercise of discretion by the trial
court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial based
on a challenge to the weight of the evidence is unfettered. In
describing the limits of a trial court's discretion, [the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has] explained:
The term discretion imports the exercise of judgment,
wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion
within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for
-5-
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge.
Discretion must be exercised on the foundation of reason,
as opposed to prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or
arbitrary actions. Discretion is abused where the course
pursued represents not merely an error of judgment, but
where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where
the law is not applied or where the record shows that the
action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will.
Id. (quotations, citations, and emphasis omitted).
According to Appellant, the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the
evidence because: 1) the shooter’s face was not visible in the surveillance
video; 2) witness Tasha Bukton’s identification of Appellant in the surveillance
video was not credible because she lied about her name; 3) Tasha Bukton’s
identification of Appellant in the surveillance video was not credible because
the shooter was not limping and the shooter’s height, weight, and attire “was
ubiquitous to young men in the area;” 4) witness Larry Maddox had a motive
to lie; and, 5) the “police failed to submit the clothes of Shakour Brown for
gunshot residue despite the fact that Brown was arrested in possession of the
murder weapon and had the same height, complexion, and build of
[Appellant].” Appellant’s Brief at 11-12. These claims fail.
As the trial court thoroughly explained:
At trial, the Commonwealth offered compelling evidence of
[Appellant’s] guilt. The shooting was captured by
surveillance video from a nearby grocery store. Although
[Appellant’s] face in the video was largely obscured by a
T-shirt that he had pulled over his head, witness Tasha
Bukton, who had known [Appellant] for most of his life,
recognized the shooter in the video as being [Appellant].
Bukton had seen [Appellant] earlier that day in distinctive
clothing and was able to identify him in the video from that
clothing, from his body structure, and from [Appellant’s]
-6-
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
distinctive limp. Analysis of the video showed that in some of
the frames, the shooter's lower face could be seen, revealing
facial hair that matched the facial hair of [Appellant] at the
time. Laboratory analysis uncovered gunshot residue on the
T-shirt [that Appellant] was wearing when he was arrested
on the day of the murder. Just before his arrest, a police
officer observed [Appellant] walking next to, and talking with,
a man who threw a firearm over a fence when the officer
approached. Ballistics analysis proved that the gun thrown
over the fence was the murder weapon. Following his arrest,
[Appellant] [admitted] the killing to his cellmate, giving
highly accurate details of the shooting. All of this was ample
evidence to establish [Appellant’s] guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, and did not, in any manner, shock the [trial] court's
sense of justice.
[Appellant] offers five specific arguments in support of his
weight of the evidence claim. First, [Appellant] claims that
his conviction was against the weight of the evidence because
of "the inability of witness Tasha Bukton to see the shooter's
face in the video of the incident." Although throughout the
surveillance footage the shooter was wearing a T-shirt over
his face, Tasha Bukton testified she was able to identify the
[Appellant] for multiple reasons. First, Bukton stated that
she had grown up with [Appellant] and was familiar with his
body structure and the way he looked. Second, Bukton told
detectives that she had seen [Appellant] on the day of the
shooting when she observed him having a conversation on
the street with "Lil Book," and from that encounter she was
able to recognize [Appellant’s] clothing in the surveillance
video. Third, Bukton testified that she was familiar with the
limp [that Appellant] suffered, and that the shooter in the
video had the same limp. Bukton testified confidently that
[Appellant] was the shooter.
In addition, Detective Thorsten Lucke, testifying as an expert
in video recovery and analysis, stated that in the video at
certain points, it is possible to see the lower parts of
[Appellant’s] face. According to Detective Lucke, these
points in the video revealed facial hair on the shooter
consistent with [Appellant’s] facial hair. This lent additional
support to Bukton's claim that she could recognize the
shooter in the video.
-7-
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
Accordingly, even though the shooter's face was covered for
most of the video, Bukton's identification testimony was
compelling evidence.
[Appellant] next claims that the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence since the video used at trial does not
show the shooter limping. [Appellant] apparently contends
that the shooter's absence of a visible limp in the video
undermines Bukton's identification. However, Bukton's
observations regarding the video were corroborated by
Detective Lucke, who testified that from his analysis of the
video, "it appears [the shooter is] either favoring his left foot
a little bit maybe or, again, he's taking an awkward step."
In addition, Bukton's identification was not based solely on
the limp that she observed in the video. As described above,
Bukton was specifically asked how she identified [Appellant]
as the shooter and whether there was anything other than
the limp that informed her identification. Bukton testified
that she had grown up with [Appellant] and had seen him on
the day of the shooting wearing the same clothing. She also
recognized his body structure. She went on to say that "when
you know a person, you see a person, you know how they
look." The jurors, who viewed the video, were free to reject
defense counsel's interpretations of the video and to credit
the testimony of Bukton and Detective Lucke.
[Appellant] also claims that his conviction was against the
weight of the evidence in light of Bukton lying under oath on
multiple occasions regarding her name. It is true that Tasha
Bukton had used multiple names. When originally
interviewed by detectives, Bukton used the name Tahjai
Wara. When Bukton took the stand at the preliminary
hearing she gave her name as Tahjai Buxton, while at trial
Bukton gave the name "Tahjai Wara" when she was sworn in.
However, Bukton explained that while Tasha Bukton was her
legal name, she had used other names because of her
concerns about being a witness in a murder case. The jury
was free to accept this explanation and to conclude that her
use of multiple names had little bearing on her credibility.
[Appellant’s] next claim is that the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence since Commonwealth witness Larry
-8-
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
Maddox, in an effort to curry favor with the Commonwealth,
had a motive to lie under oath. It is true that Maddox, who
testified about [Appellant’s] admissions, had entered into a
plea agreement on his own cases that required him to
cooperate with the Commonwealth. It is also true that
Maddox had a motive to help the Commonwealth in exchange
for assistance in his own cases.
However, the jury was made fully aware of the plea
agreement and Maddox's motive to help the Commonwealth.
The jury was free to credit his testimony notwithstanding the
evidence of his plea agreements.
Moreover, the specific details given by Maddox in the
statements that he attributed to [Appellant] were
substantially corroborated by other evidence and thereby
gave Maddox more credibility than a typical jailhouse
informant. According to Maddox, [Appellant] said that he had
used a 9-mm Kel-Tec handgun in the shooting, while the
ballistics evidence proved that the murder weapon was, in
fact, a 9-mm Kel-Tec. [Appellant] also told Maddox that he
had chased the decedent into an alleyway, which was
corroborated by witness Sloan Maura, who testified that from
inside his home, could see into an alleyway and observed the
shooter standing over the victim continuing to shoot. Maddox
also said that [Appellant] told him he had shot the victim on
Sheridan Street, which was corroborated by surveillance
footage showing the shooter on North Sheridan Street
approaching the victim. As a result, Maddox was an effective
witness.
[Appellant’s] final claim is that his conviction is against the
weight of the evidence in light of the failure of the police to
exclude Shakur Brown as a suspect after he was caught with
the murder weapon. It is true that Brown was observed by
an officer in possession of the murder weapon hours after the
shooting. However, at the time Brown was seen with the
weapon, he was walking "shoulder to shoulder," directly next
to [Appellant]. That Brown had the murder weapon in his
hand at the moment police approached, several hours after
the shooting, while walking right next to [Appellant], did not
undermine the compelling evidence, described above,
demonstrating that [Appellant] was the shooter.
-9-
J-S39025-20
J-S39026-20
Accordingly, the evidence adduced at trial plainly established
that [Appellant] shot and killed Donte Williams.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/25/19, at 5-9 (citations and some capitalization
omitted).
We agree with the learned trial court's cogent and thorough analysis
and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Appellant's weight of the evidence claim. Accordingly, Appellant's claim on
appeal fails.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/08/2020
- 10 -