sufficiency of evidence claim in Pennsylvania

1982“In testing a sufficiency of evidence claim we first accept as true all the evidence upon which the finder of fact could properly have reached its verdict, and then, after giving the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferences arising from that evidence, we ask whether the evidence and the inferences arising from it are sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty of the crimes which he has been convicted.” Commonwealth v. Steward, 263 Pa.Super. 191, 199 , 397 A.2d 812, 815-816 (1979). *221 Viewed under this standard, the evidence was as follows: The

1982“In testing a sufficiency of evidence claim we first accept as true all the evidence upon which the finder of fact could properly have reached its verdict, and then, after giving the Commonwealth the benefit of all reasonable inferences arising from that evidence, we ask whether the evidence and the inferences arising from it are sufficient in law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty of the crimes which he has been convicted.” Commonwealth v. Steward, 263 Pa.Super. 191, 199 , 397 A.2d 812, 815-816 (1979). *221 Viewed under this standard, the evidence was as follows: The

2017This court erred in allowing by operation of law to deny Appellant's Motion for Post Verdict Relief, where the evidence was insufficient to establish Appellant's identity as the actual shooter The standard of review for a sufficiency of evidence claim is "whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is sufficient to support all the elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Miller, 541 Pa. 531, 540 , 664 A.2d 1310, 1314 (1995) ( citing Commonweal

2017This court erred in allowing by operation of law to deny Appellant's Motion for Post Verdict Relief, where the evidence was insufficient to establish Appellant's identity as the actual shooter The standard of review for a sufficiency of evidence claim is "whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is sufficient to support all the elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Miller, 541 Pa. 531, 540 , 664 A.2d 1310, 1314 (1995) ( citing Commonweal

2017This court erred in allowing by operation of law to deny Appellant's Motion for Post Verdict Relief, where the evidence was insufficient to establish Appellant's identity as the actual shooter The standard of review for a sufficiency of evidence claim is "whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is sufficient to support all the elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Miller, 541 Pa. 531, 540 , 664 A.2d 1310, 1314 (1995) ( citing Commonweal

2017This court erred in allowing by operation of law to deny Appellant's Motion for Post Verdict Relief, where the evidence was insufficient to establish Appellant's identity as the actual shooter The standard of review for a sufficiency of evidence claim is "whether the evidence admitted at trial and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner, is sufficient to support all the elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Miller, 541 Pa. 531, 540 , 664 A.2d 1310, 1314 (1995) ( citing Commonweal

2025See Commonwealth v. Parrish, 191 A.3d 31, 36 (Pa. Super. 2018).

2024Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009).

2024See Commonwealth v. Price, 876 A.2d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that a sufficiency of evidence claim is not cognizable under the PCRA when it is not tethered to a corresponding ineffective assistance of counsel analysis); see also Commonwealth v. Bell, 706 A.2d 855, 861 (Pa. Super. 1998) (concluding that sufficiency claims are not cognizable under the PCRA).

2024See Commonwealth v. Price, 876 A.2d 988, 995 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding that a sufficiency of evidence claim is not cognizable under the PCRA when it is not tethered to a corresponding ineffective assistance of counsel analysis); see also Commonwealth v. Bell, 706 A.2d 855, 861 (Pa. Super. 1998) (concluding that sufficiency claims are not cognizable under the PCRA).

2022See Miller, supra. Accordingly, we discern no merit to Appellant’s argument on this point.

2022See Miller, supra. Accordingly, we discern no merit to Appellant’s argument on this point.

2022The Township cites Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254, 1258 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), for the proposition that a sufficiency of evidence claim looks to whether “each element of the offenses charged was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Township argues that proof of service by certified mail through a signed receipt is not an element of the offense, which, here, concerns whether or not Owner stored more than two abandoned vehicles on his properties in violation of Section 132-4.D of the Code.

2022Super. 2006) (quoting Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 894 A.2d 759, 773 (Pa .

2021Commonwealth v. Dunkins, 229 A.3d 622, 631 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

2019See id. at unnumbered pages 5-7.

2019When a court is reviewing a sufficiency of evidence claim, “[b]oth direct and circumstantial evidence must be considered equally.” Commonwealth v. Carson, 592 A.2d 1318, 1320 (Pa. Super. 1991).

2019Our standard of review for a sufficiency of evidence claim is de novo, while “our scope of review is limited to considering the evidence of record, and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as the verdict winner.” See Commonwealth v. Rushing, 99 A.3d 416, 420-21 (Pa. 2014).

2018Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2018See Commonwealth v. Teems, 74 A.3d 142, 144-45 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussing a sufficiency of evidence challenge to DUI-general impairment).

2016See id. -5- J-S35034-16 injustice, for example, by facilitating entry of an unknowing, involuntary, or unintelligent plea.

2016Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 36 A.3d 24, 37 (Pa. 2011).

2016See Ratsamy, 934 A.2d at 1235 .

2016This Court has recognized that the scope of our review in a license suspension case “is whether the trial court’s findings are supported by competent evidence of record and whether an error of law or abuse of discretion was committed.” Commonwealth v. Brewington, 779 A.2d 525, 526 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citing Commonwealth v. Baer, 682 A.2d 802, 804-05 (Pa. Super. 1996)).

2016"A motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction on a particular charge, and is granted only in cases in which the Commonwealth has failed to carry its burden regarding the charge." Commonwealth v. Andrulewicz, 911 A.2d 162, 165 (Pa.Super. 2006).

2016This Court has recognized that the scope of our review in a license suspension case “is whether the trial court’s findings are supported by competent evidence of record and whether an error of law or abuse of discretion was committed.” Commonwealth v. Brewington, 779 A.2d 525, 526 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citing Commonwealth v. Baer, 682 A.2d 802, 804-05 (Pa. Super. 1996)).

2016See Commonwealth v. Marks, 1997 Pa. Super.

2016Commonwealth v. Kelly, 78 A.3d 1136, 1139 (Pa. Super. 2013).