Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

[U] Commonwealth v. Bayete

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

February 7, 2014

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee
v.
CHIKUYO ASINIA BAYETE, Appellant

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered November 26, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000473-2012

BEFORE: BOWES, ALLEN, and MUSMANNO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM

ALLEN, J.

Chikuyo Asinia Bayete ("Appellant") has appealed from the judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of robbery, criminal conspiracy to com m it robbery, theft by unlawful taking, simple assault, possessing an instrument of crime, and burglary. We affirm.

On July 19, 2013, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal. The order stated that "any issue not properly included in the said Statement shall be deemed waived." Appellant filed a statement on August 9, 2013, which contained a single sufficiency issue:

There was insufficient evidence for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [ Appellant] was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted when (1) prosecution witnesses Jordan Tracy and Jarod Tracy were unreliable since they had been given leniency for criminal charges in return for their testimony [ and] (2) Korrine Carson and Jarod Tracy did not provide sufficient testimony identifying [ Appellant] and (3) no physical evidence was presented by the prosecution to link [ Appellant] to the scene of the crime.

I n his brief filed with this Court, Appellant raises the following five issues:

[1.] THE COURT ERRED IN THIS CASE BY FAILING TO EXCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHS DUE TO THEIR INFLAMMATORY NATURE.
[2.] THE COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE PROSECUTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF [APPELLANT'S] PREVIOUS FELONY CONVICTION.
[3.] THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ALLOW [APPELLANT] TO PRESENT THE TESTIMONY OF LIONEL SHARROD.
[4.] THE EVIDENCE WAS INSUFFICIENT IN THIS CASE TO PROVE THE CHARGES FOR WHICH [APPELLANT] WAS CONVICTED.
[5.] THE SENTENCE IN THIS CASE WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE AN[D] CLEARLY UNREASONABLE IN THAT IT WAS IN THE AGGRAVATED RANGE OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES WITHOUT SUFFICIENT ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.