from the Judgment of Sentence Entered September 30, 2015 In
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal
Division at No: CP-51-CR-0000048-2015
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.
Jack Williams appeals from the judgment of sentence entered
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
("trial court"), following his bench conviction for
escape under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5121(a). Upon review, we
facts and procedural history underlying this case are
undisputed. On November 30, 2014, the Pennsylvania Board of
Probation and Parole ("Board") issued a warrant to
commit and detain Appellant on technical parole violations
for changing residence without permission and failure to
report as instructed. As a result, Appellant was moved to
Kintock Hall, a half-way house, where he was to remain
pending the resolution of his technical parole violations.
While at Kintock Hall, Appellant suffered a medical emergency
on December 2, 2014. Appellant was escorted by a member of
Kintock Hall to Temple University Hospital. Upon arrival at
the hospital, Appellant left the company of his escort and
fled. Appellant was charged with escape. He proceeded to a
bench trial, following which the trial court found him guilty
of escape. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 11½
to 23 months' imprisonment on September 30, 2015.
Appellant timely appealed to this Court. Following
Appellant's filing of a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of
errors complained of on appeal, the trial court issued a
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
appeal, Appellant raises two issues for our review:
[I.] Was the evidence insufficient to support
[A]ppellant's conviction for escape where the
Commonwealth failed to prove that [A]ppellant was in official
detention at Kintock Hall, a halfway house, and not under
parole supervision, at the time of the alleged escape?
[II.] Should not this matter be remanded to the trial court
for a new trial or a hearing on after-discovered evidence
because while this case was pending on appeal [A]ppellant
received a letter from the [Board] clarifying that he was
under parole supervision when he left Temple Hospital without
Appellant's Brief at 3.
first address Appellant's claim that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction for escape because the
Commonwealth did not prove that he was in "official
detention" when he escaped from Kintock Hall on December
2, 2014. Appellant points out that he was on parole on the
date in question, which is excluded from the definition of
official detention under Section 5121 of the Crimes Code.
Thus, Appellant argues that the Commonwealth could not
establish the offense of escape because, as a parolee, he was
not in official detention.
claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a
question of law." Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744
A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000).
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence is whether 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 finder 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. Antidormi, 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa.
Super. 2014), appeal denied, 95 A.3d 275 (Pa. 2014).
5121 of the Crimes Code, relating to escape, provides in
(a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully removes
himself from official detention or fails to return to
official detention following temporary leave granted for ...