Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence April 30, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at Nos.: CP-09-CR-0001366-2011 CP-09-CR-0002014-2011 CP-09-CR-0007959-2011
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Platt, J.
BEFORE: BOWES, J., ALLEN, J., and PLATT, J.*fn1
Appellant, Albert Michael Jannett, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of three counts of robbery, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii). We affirm.
Between February 4, 2011 and February 19, 2011, Appellant committed three bank robberies. In each, he entered a bank located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and wrote a note on a deposit slip that he handed to a bank teller, indicating that he had a gun and the teller was not to activate any alarms or give him any marked bills. Appellant did not actually have a gun with him during any of the robberies. However, each time, the bank teller handed over cash, and Appellant left.
Following a non-jury trial, the court found Appellant guilty of three counts of robbery. On April 30, 2012, Appellant was sentenced to not less than ten nor more than twenty years' imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. Appellant's sentence included a mandatory minimum pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9714(a)(1) because this was his second crime of violence. This timely appeal followed.*fn2
Appellant raises two issues for our review on appeal:
A. Did the trial court commit an error of law in finding the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict concerning the count of robbery, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii), levied against Appellant, where the legislature has recently enacted 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(vi)?
B. Did the trial court commit an error of law in sentencing the Appellant pursuant to 42 PA.C.S. § 9714(a)(1), where the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove the Appellant guilty of a crime of violence as defined by the statute?
(Appellant's Brief, at 3).
Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence presented to sustain his conviction under Section 3701(a)(1)(ii) because Appellant's criminal actions more closely corresponded to Section 3701(a)(1)(vi). (See id. at 11-16). When reviewing a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we apply the following standard:
[W]hether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying [the above] test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the trier of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.
Commonwealth v. Bullick, 830 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa. Super. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Gooding, 818 A.2d 546, 549 (Pa. Super. 2003), ...