J-S21026-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TYREK MCWILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 1106 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003536-2020 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TYREK MCWILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 1107 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003538-2020 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : TYREK MCWILLIAMS : : Appellant : No. 1108 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 29, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003540-2020

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., NICHOLS, J., and MURRAY, J.

J-S21026-24

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 6, 2024 Appellant Tyrek McWilliams appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction for first-degree murder and related offenses.

After review, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

We adopt the trial court’s summary of the underlying facts and procedural history of this matter. See Trial Ct. Op., 10/3/23, at 1-7. Briefly, Appellant was arrested and charged with multiple offenses following a shooting in 2020. On November 18, 2022, a jury convicted Appellant of first- degree murder, conspiracy, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying public firearms in Philadelphia, possessing an instrument of crime (PIC), and two counts of both aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another person (REAP). On November 29, 2022, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which was denied by operation of law.

Appellant subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal and a court- ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The trial court issued an opinion addressing Appellant’s claims.

On appeal, Appellant raises the following issues: 1. Were the guilty verdicts against the weight of the evidence— a. for Murder-1 as the only evidence tying [A]ppellant to any crime came from biased and unreliable police identification gleaned from a patchwork of surveillance video. Identification was, in part, highly unreliable as police had purported de minimis prior contact with [A]ppellant;

-2- J-S21026-24

b. for Aggravated assault, REAP, PIC and the firearms charges as the only evidence tying [A]ppellant to any shooting came from biased and unreliable police identification gleaned from a patchwork of surveillance video. Identification was, in part, highly unreliable as police had purported de minimis prior contact with [A]ppellant?

2. Was the evidence insufficient to sustain the guilty verdicts— a. for Murder-1 as [A]ppellant did not shoot decedent, and there was no evidence that he with premeditation willfully, deliberately and specifically intended to kill the decedent; b. for Conspiracy to Commit Murder-1, as there was no direct evidence that [A]ppellant agreed with another to commit any murder; c. for the Aggravated Assaults (F1) as there was insufficient evidence that [A]ppellant attempted to cause serious bodily injury to the complainants who never came to court?

3. Did the testimony of Detective Thorsten Lucke as an expert in the field of digital forensic recovery and compilation, exceed the narrow scope of his expertise and was it used to improperly instruct the jury as to what factual conclusions to draw and was done in a play-by-play fashion that was cumulative and included improper commentary?

4. Did the trial court err in denying [A]ppellant’s motion for a mistrial, as the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct when they said [A]ppellant “[is] really going to jail for life,” as discussing the penalty for murder-1 was unfairly prejudicial and inflammatory. (N.T., 11/17/22, pp. 104, 157-159) The prosecutor acted intentionally or with a conscious disregard that such prosecutorial overreaching would create a substantial risk that [A]ppellant would be deprived of a fair trial and violate [A]ppellant’s substantive and procedural due process rights.

Accordingly, the convictions should be reversed and the Commonwealth barred from retrying [A]ppellant, pursuant to the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions. (Commonwealth v. Johnson, 231 A.3d 807, 826 (Pa. 2020); Pa. Const. art. I, § 10; U.S. Const. amend. V)?

-3- J-S21026-24

Appellant’s Brief at 9-10.

Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant law, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op., 10/3/23, at 1-19. The trial court thoroughly addressed Appellant’s claims and correctly concluded that he was not entitled to relief. Specifically, we agree with the trial court that Appellant waived his evidentiary challenge by failing to raise an objection at trial. Further, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial court in rejecting Appellant’s weight claim or his motion for a mistrial.

Finally, we agree with the trial court that there was sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s convictions. Accordingly, we affirm.1 Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 11/06/2024

____________________________________________

1 The parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion in the event of further proceedings.

-4- Circulated 09/30/2024 10:39 AM