section 3701(a) robbery conviction in Pennsylvania

2019See Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 406 A.2d 1128, 1130 (Pa. Super. 1979) (finding “brief tug of war over the wallet” coupled with victim’s testimony she was “afraid” was insufficient to conclude defendant intentionally placed victim in fear of serious bodily injury); Commonwealth v. Scott, 369 A.2d 809, 813 (Pa. Super. 1976) (reversing delinquency adjudication on charge of robbery under Section 3701(a)(1)(i)-(iii) when defendant simply snatched complainant’s purse; “there is no evidence whatsoever that the complainant relinquished her purse in response to any violent act [or] threat of such an act.

2016See Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 406 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 1979) (holding evidence insufficient to support conviction for robbery under Section 3701(a)(1)(ii) where the defendant grabbed the victim’s wallet and the victim resisted, causing “a brief tug of war over the wallet”).

2008See Brown, 484 A.2d at 742 ; Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 267 Pa.Super. 451 , 406 A.2d 1128, 1130-31 (1979) (stating in dicta that defendant who grabbed a wallet out of the victim’s hand resulting in a brief tug-of-war for the wallet could have been charged and convicted of robbery under section 3701(a)(l)(v)); see generally Jones, 771 A.2d at 799 . 3 ¶ 19 In his first claim, Bedell also raises an argument related to his counsel’s statement that Bedell had pushed the victim upon returning the money he had stolen.

2008Brown, 484 A.2d at 742 (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 771 A.2d 796, 799 (Pa.Super.2001) (stating that “[tjhere may be no force directed at the purse-snatch victim; indeed, the snatcher may not look at the victim ..., but the taking is still forcible.”). 2 ¶ 14 In Commonwealth v. McNair, 376 Pa.Super. 604 , 546 A.2d 688 (1988), the defendant was convicted of robbery under section 3701(a)(l)(v) when he and two other men, dressed in hooded sweatshirts, sunglasses and bandannas, ran towards the victim, who in response, held out her purse hoping the men would take it and not phys

2026See Commonwealth v. Bragg, 133 A.3d 328, 332 (Pa. Super. 2016) (finding evidence sufficient for robbery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii) where Bragg entered a bank, disguised himself with sunglasses and a baseball cap, wore surgical gloves to conceal his fingerprints, banged his fists on the bank’s counter, and demanded that the bank’s teller place only large bills in his bag); id. (“While Appellant asserts he cannot be guilty of first-degree robbery as he did not brandish a weapon or make a specific verbal threat, this Court has never held that either action is required to sustain a convicti

2021See also Commonwealth v. Bragg, -6- 133 A.3d 328, 332 (Pa.Super. 2016) (holding sufficient evidence supported defendant’s robbery conviction under Section 3701(a)(1)(ii), where defendant entered bank, disguised himself, and said to teller, “What are you looking at?”; rejecting defendant’s argument that he could not be guilty of first-degree robbery because he did not brandish weapon or make specific verbal threat).

2015Id. -5- J-S65003-15 On appeal, the appellant in Swartz raised a sufficiency claim regarding his conviction of robbery under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(iv), which required this Court to determine “whether the appellant’s intent was adequately demonstrated when there was no actual threat or display of force but only a demand for money.” In making this determination, we conducted the following case law analysis: In Commonwealth v. Hurd, 268 Pa. Superior Ct. 24 , 407 A.2d 418 (1979)[,] this court held that an actor’s request to open a drawer, which was repeated in the following manner: “Bitch, open

2015Id. -5- J-S65003-15 On appeal, the appellant in Swartz raised a sufficiency claim regarding his conviction of robbery under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(iv), which required this Court to determine “whether the appellant’s intent was adequately demonstrated when there was no actual threat or display of force but only a demand for money.” In making this determination, we conducted the following case law analysis: In Commonwealth v. Hurd, 268 Pa. Superior Ct. 24 , 407 A.2d 418 (1979)[,] this court held that an actor’s request to open a drawer, which was repeated in the following manner: “Bitch, open

2025Robbery (a) Offense defined.— (1) A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he: (i) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another; (ii) threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(i)-(ii) (bold in original). -8- This Court has held “[a] conviction for robbery does not require proof of a completed theft[.]” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 936 A.2d 107, 110 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2016See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 936 A.2d 107 (Pa.Super. 2007) (indicating robbery does not require completion of predicate offense of theft); Commonwealth v. Everett, 443 A.2d 1142 (Pa.Super. 1982) (indicating the defendant’s robbery conviction was supported by sufficient evidence where he aided and abetted cohort in - 14 - J-A01005-16 robbery).

2024See also Commonwealth v. Jannett, 58 A.3d 818, 822 (Pa. Super. 2012) (finding sufficient evidence for a robbery conviction under section 3701(a)(1)(ii) where the defendant did not have a gun but demanded money and stated to his victims during the robbery that he had a gun). 6 Harris has filed an application, post-briefing, with this Court for a copy of the Commonwealth’s trial exhibit 33, which is a copy of a parking ticket establishing he parked his car at UPMC Shadyside approximately one hour after the robbery.

2018Commonwealth v. Jannett, 58 A.3d 818, 822 (Pa.Super. 2012).

2020See ____________________________________________ 2 To sustain a conviction for robbery under Section 3701(a)(1)(ii), the Commonwealth must establish that “in the course of committing a theft,” the defendant “threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii). 3 “To sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy, the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant (1) entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person or persons, (2) with a shared criminal intent and (3) an overt act was done in

2015A conviction of criminal conspiracy requires proof “that the defendant (1) entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person or persons, (2) with a shared criminal intent[,] and (3) an overt act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992, 996 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Hennigan, -3- J-S13003-15 753 A.2d 245, 253 (Pa. Super. 2000)).

2017See Bedell, 954 A.2d at 1215 (holding that where appellant took a wallet out of the victim’s hands, the evidence was sufficient to support a robbery conviction under § 3701(a)(1)(v), as the victim was aware of the taking, which was accomplished with force, however slight); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 771 A.2d 796, 799 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating “a purse snatcher … is guilty of robbery as the victim is aware of the force.”).

2016Commonwealth v. Bedell, 954 A.2d 1209, 1213 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

2017See Bedell, 954 A.2d at 1215 (holding that where appellant took a wallet out of the victim’s hands, the evidence was sufficient to support a robbery conviction under § 3701(a)(1)(v), as the victim was aware of the taking, which was accomplished with force, however slight); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 771 A.2d 796, 799 (Pa. Super. 2001) (stating “a purse snatcher … is guilty of robbery as the victim is aware of the force.”).

2008Brown, 484 A.2d at 742 (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Jones, 771 A.2d 796, 799 (Pa.Super.2001) (stating that “[tjhere may be no force directed at the purse-snatch victim; indeed, the snatcher may not look at the victim ..., but the taking is still forcible.”). 2 ¶ 14 In Commonwealth v. McNair, 376 Pa.Super. 604 , 546 A.2d 688 (1988), the defendant was convicted of robbery under section 3701(a)(l)(v) when he and two other men, dressed in hooded sweatshirts, sunglasses and bandannas, ran towards the victim, who in response, held out her purse hoping the men would take it and not phys

1990See, *625 Commonwealth v. Hurd, 268 Pa.Super. 24 , 407 A.2d 418 (1979) (evidence that defendant approached the counter, slammed his fist on the counter, told salesperson to open the door while pointing an unidentified object in his pocket at salesperson was held sufficient for a robbery conviction under § 3701(a)(l)(ii)); Commonwealth v. Davis, 313 Pa.Super. 355 , 459 A.2d 1267 (1983) (evidence that the defendant climbed through a store window, told proprietor to get back and proceeded to remove money from the cash register was held sufficient for robbery conviction under § 3701(a)(l)(ii)).

1990See, *625 Commonwealth v. Hurd, 268 Pa.Super. 24 , 407 A.2d 418 (1979) (evidence that defendant approached the counter, slammed his fist on the counter, told salesperson to open the door while pointing an unidentified object in his pocket at salesperson was held sufficient for a robbery conviction under § 3701(a)(l)(ii)); Commonwealth v. Davis, 313 Pa.Super. 355 , 459 A.2d 1267 (1983) (evidence that the defendant climbed through a store window, told proprietor to get back and proceeded to remove money from the cash register was held sufficient for robbery conviction under § 3701(a)(l)(ii)).

2024Concerning robbery under Crimes Code Section 3701(a)(1)(ii), “the Commonwealth must establish that in the course of committing a theft, the defendant threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Ouch, 199 A.3d 918, 923 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii).

2024Commonwealth v. Ouch, 199 A.3d 918 , 923-24 (Pa. Super. 2018).

2022There, we found that the evidence was sufficient to sustain Taylor’s conviction for robbery under section 3701(a)(1)(ii) where Taylor “pressed a hard object into [the victim’s] body, and demanded that she give him money from the register and the safe.” Id. at 664 .

2012See Bullick, supra at 1000 ; see also Commonwealth v. Taylor, 831 A.2d 661, 664 (Pa.Super.2003) (finding sufficient evidence to convict appellant under Section 3701(a)(1)(h) where appellant put a hard object to store clerk’s side and she testified she was scared he would kill her); Commonwealth v. Hurd, 268 Pa.Super. 24 , 407 A.2d 418, 419-21 (1979) (finding sufficient evidence to convict appellant under Section 3701(a)(1)(h) where appellant threatened store clerk with something in his pocket that he intended her to believe was a gun).

2019See Davison, 177 A.3d at 957 ; Valentine, 101 A.3d at 807 .

2016To sustain a conviction for robbery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(ii), the Commonwealth is required to prove “that in the course of committing a theft, [the] [a]ppellant threatened another with or intentionally put her in fear of immediate serious bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Valentine, 101 A.3d 801, 806-807 (Pa. Super. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2016See Commonwealth v. Moore, 494 A.2d 447, 449 (Pa. Super. 1985) (reversing robbery conviction under § 3701(a)(1)(v) -9- J-S18034-16 where evidence failed to show property was taken from the person of another); accord Commonwealth v. Shamberger, 788 A.2d 408, 418 (Pa. Super. 2001) (en banc) (holding “property need not be taken from the victim’s body as long as it is taken in his presence and from his immediate possession and control” when construing “from the person” in a different criminal statute).

2001Commonwealth v. Moore, 343 Pa.Super. 242 , 494 A.2d 447 (1985).

2026Yet, in Diaz, the Superior Court held: “[The defendant’s] prior conviction of interference with commerce by threats or violence under Section 1951 [of the Federal Crimes Code] is not an equivalent crime to robbery under Section 3701(a)(1)(ii) [of the Crimes Code].” Diaz, 152 A.3d at 1052 (emphasis added).

2026See Commonwealth v. Bowen, 612 A.2d 512, 514 (Pa. Super. 1992) (“the robbery here was found to be committed at gunpoint and as such would seem squarely to fall within the definition of section 3701(a)(1)(ii) as a first[-]degree felony”).

2026See Commonwealth v. Bowen, 612 A.2d 512, 514 (Pa. Super. 1992) (“the robbery here was found to be committed at gunpoint and as such would seem squarely to fall within the definition of section 3701(a)(1)(ii) as a first[-]degree felony”).

2026Commonwealth v. Kimmel, 125 A.3d 1272, 1276 (Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9765 Appellant was charged with robbery under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii), which provides as follows: A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he … threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury …. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii) (paragraph designation and breaks omitted).

2024Although Appellant’s specific claim on appeal is not altogether clear, it appears as though Appellant contends that the jury rendered a “general verdict” on the conspiracy charge and, thus, Appellant “can only be sentenced for conspiracy to commit the less serious underlying -7- offense.” See Appellant’s Brief at 13; see also Commonwealth v. Riley, 811 A.2d 610 (Pa. Super. 2002) (holding: “in the absence of clear evidence of the jury's intent to the contrary, a general conspiracy verdict must be resolved in favor of the defendant, and may be construed only as a conviction of conspiracy to comm

2023Id. at 1033 (citation omitted).

2022For the purposes of subsection 3701(a)(1)(ii), the proper focus is on the nature of the threat posed by an assailant and whether he reasonably placed a victim in fear of “immediate serious bodily injury.” Commonwealth v. Hopkins, 747 A.2d 910, 914 (Pa. Super. 2000). -7- Here, Appellant contends that his robbery conviction under section 3701(a)(1)(ii) cannot be sustained because the Commonwealth failed to prove that he threatened immediate serious bodily injury to Dr. Patel.

2020Additionally, “[i]t has long been the law of this Commonwealth that the crime of criminal conspiracy does not merge with the completed offense which was the object of the conspiracy.” Commonwealth v. Miller, 364 A.2d 886, 886 (Pa. 1976).

2020See ____________________________________________ 2 To sustain a conviction for robbery under Section 3701(a)(1)(ii), the Commonwealth must establish that “in the course of committing a theft,” the defendant “threatens another with or intentionally puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(ii). 3 “To sustain a conviction for criminal conspiracy, the Commonwealth must establish that the defendant (1) entered into an agreement to commit or aid in an unlawful act with another person or persons, (2) with a shared criminal intent and (3) an overt act was done in

2019See Commonwealth v. Ostolaza, 406 A.2d 1128, 1130 (Pa. Super. 1979) (finding “brief tug of war over the wallet” coupled with victim’s testimony she was “afraid” was insufficient to conclude defendant intentionally placed victim in fear of serious bodily injury); Commonwealth v. Scott, 369 A.2d 809, 813 (Pa. Super. 1976) (reversing delinquency adjudication on charge of robbery under Section 3701(a)(1)(i)-(iii) when defendant simply snatched complainant’s purse; “there is no evidence whatsoever that the complainant relinquished her purse in response to any violent act [or] threat of such an act.