J-S88025-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DOUGLAS ROBERSON

Appellant No. 3581 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 14, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0002763-2015

BEFORE: OLSON, J., RANSOM, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.* MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED MARCH 08, 2017

Appellant, Douglas Roberson, appeals from the judgment of sentence of two years of reporting probation, following a bench trial resulting in his conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude police.^[1] We affirm.

In January 2015, Appellant was driving in the City and County of Philadelphia when Police Officers Richard Hanton (“Officer Hanton”) and Leon Telesford (“Officer Telesford”) observed Appellant commit a traffic violation. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 10/14/15 at 10-11. The police activated the lights and sirens of their marked patrol car and pulled Appellant over. Id. at 11-12. Once Appellant stopped, both officers exited their patrol car and

____________________________________________

J-S88025-16

Appellant then explained that he drove to one of his properties in North Philadelphia. Id. at 51-52

Following trial in October 2015, the court found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned charge. That same day, Appellant was sentenced to two years of probation. Appellant filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied in November 2015.

Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The lower court ordered a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement in February 2016. In lieu of filing a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, Appellate counsel, Jennifer A. Santiago, Esq. (“Ms. Santiago”), timely filed a statement of intent to file an Anders2 brief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(4). The trial court issued an opinion in May 2016, which extensively outlined the testimony at trial and specifically discussed the sufficiency of the evidence against Appellant.

Ms. Santiago filed an Anders brief. However, Ms. Santiago never filed an application to withdraw in which she asserted Appellant’s claims were frivolous. Rather, in September 2016, this Court granted Ms. Santiago leave to withdraw because she had closed her legal practice. Accordingly, we also directed the trial court to appoint new counsel on Appellant’s behalf. The trial court appointed Douglas Earl, Esq. (“Mr. Earl”) but directed no further compliance with Rule 1925. ____________________________________________

J-S88025-16

In January 2017, this Court issued an order directing Mr. Earl to file an advocate’s brief or a new application to withdraw along with a proper Anders brief. Mr. Earl complied and filed an advocate’s brief in February 2017.

Appellant presents the following question for our review:

J-S88025-16

Absent waiver, the evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer.

Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the Commonwealth need not establish guilt to a mathematical certainty, and may sustain its burden by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Significantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder; if the record contains support for the convictions they may not be disturbed. So long as the evidence adduced, accepted in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, demonstrates the respective elements of a defendant's crimes beyond a reasonable doubt, his convictions will be upheld. Commonwealth v. McKellick, 24 A.3d 982, 990 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations omitted).

In relevant part, Section 3733(a) of the Motor Vehicle Code provides:

Any driver of a motor vehicle who willfully fails or refuses to bring his vehicle to a stop, or who otherwise flees or attempts to elude a pursuing police officer, when given a visual and audible signal to bring the vehicle to a stop, commits [a misdemeanor of the second degree].

75 Pa.C.S. § 3733(a), (a.^[2])(1).

In the instant case, uniformed police officers in a marked police vehicle used audio and visual signals to instruct Appellant to stop his vehicle. N.T. 10/14/15 at 46. Appellant acknowledged that he was aware of these signals to stop. Id. Appellant initially complied. Id. at 48-49. However, Appellant conceded that he drove off. Id. Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, this evidence was sufficient to

J-S88025-16

establish that Appellant was guilty of fleeing a police officer. See McKellick, 24 A.3d at 990; 75 Pa.C.S. § 3733(a).

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 3/8/2017