J-A26017-20
`
`NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
`
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`GARY GODDARD
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Appellant
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
` IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
` PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
` No. 2097 EDA 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 13, 2019
`In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at
`No(s): CP-09-CR-0004365-2018
`
`
`BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
`
`MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 28, 2020
`
`Gary Goddard appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
`
`Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, following his convictions by a jury of
`
`criminal attempt to commit homicide,1 discharge of a firearm into an occupied
`
`structure,2 recklessly endangering another person (REAP),3 and possessing an
`
`instrument of crime (PIC).4
`
`____________________________________________
`
`* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
`
` 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 901.
`
` 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2707.1(a).
`
` 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2705.
`
` 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 907(a).
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`
`
`Goddard’s convictions stem from his role in multiple shootings that
`
`occurred at a gathering hosted outside April Coleman’s home, located at 914
`
`Elmhurst Avenue, in Bristol, Pennsylvania, on May 4, 2018, which resulted in
`
`the deaths of Zyisean McDuffie and Tommy Ballard. On that date, Coleman
`
`hosted a party for her two children, who planned to attend their high school
`
`prom later that evening. Several family friends were present including Joseph
`
`Williams,5 Gary Goddard, Jr.,6 Tajon Skelton, Rayshaun James, and Sincere
`
`McNeil. These individuals were all gathered around April Coleman’s Chrysler
`
`Pacifica, which was parked on her front lawn area.
`
`At one point, McDuffie arrived at the Coleman residence, approached
`
`the group at the Chrysler Pacifica, and shook hands only with Williams.
`
`Williams then asked why McDuffie did not acknowledge the others, at which
`
`point McDuffie stated that he “didn’t mess with none of [them]” and called
`
`them all “bitch.” N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, at 190. At the end of the verbal
`
`confrontation, McDuffie left, stating he would return soon.
`
`When McDuffie returned about forty-five minutes to an hour later, he
`
`arrived with Ballard, Jahmier Wilson, and Jackie Valentine; Williams and
`
`Wilson then walked away together to have a private conversation. Within the
`
`____________________________________________
`
`5 Joseph Williams is Goddard’s co-defendant, and was charged separately in
`connection with the same shooting incident. We consider Williams’ appeal
`separately at Commonwealth v. Williams, 1824 EDA 2019.
`
` 6
`
` At trial, Gary Nathaniel Goddard, Jr., was sometimes referred to as “Static”
`or “Little Gary.” For clarity, we refer to him exclusively as “Goddard, Jr.”
`Goddard, Jr., is Goddard’s son.
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`larger group, still standing around the Chrysler Pacifica, an argument ensued
`
`amongst Goddard, Jr., McNeil, McDuffie and Ballard. McDuffie punched
`
`Goddard, Jr., in the face, and within moments, Williams removed the firearm
`
`from his waistband and began firing it at Wilson, who was running away from
`
`him. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/15/19, at 110-114; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19, at 170-
`
`73. Although Williams fired repeatedly at Wilson, Wilson was not injured, but
`
`McDuffie and Ballard were struck. Ballard collapsed in the front yard of 911
`
`Elmhurst Avenue and McDuffie was struck but still standing in the driveway of
`
`916 Elmhurst Avenue.
`
`Goddard then appeared, walking down Weston Avenue, with his hand
`
`raised and wielding a firearm. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 281-84; N.T. Jury
`
`Trial, 3/15/19, at 120-22. Standing in front of 916 Elmhurst Avenue, Goddard
`
`fired in the direction of the homes, and then at McDuffie, whose legs gave out
`
`from under him after the shots were fired. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/15/19, at 122;
`
`N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19, at 67-68. April Coleman observed Goddard discharge
`
`his weapon at her home, heard glass breaking, and then said to him, “Are you
`
`fucking kidding me[?]” N.T. Jury Trial, 3/15/19, at 123-24. Goddard looked
`
`at her, but did not reply. Goddard then stood over McDuffie, who was lying
`
`on the ground, and discharged his firearm, lodging a bullet in McDuffie’s head
`
`just above the hairline. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 288; N.T. Jury Trial,
`
`3/18/19, at 117-22, 226-29.
`
`Other testimony revealed that Goddard, Jr., chased Wilson from the
`
`scene of the shooting, gun in hand and pointed forward with his arm fully
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`extended. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/15/19, at 38-41; see also N.T. Jury Trial,
`
`3/18/19, at 223-25. Goddard then told Goddard, Jr., to “Come on, let’s go.
`
`Give me the gun, Static.” N.T. Jury Trial, 3/15/19, at 43. Goddard, Jr.,
`
`approached Goddard, and the two ran off together back towards Weston
`
`Avenue. Id. at 45, 127.
`
`When police arrived at the scene, Officer Michael Sarciewicz first found
`
`Ballard, who was still able to talk and move, lying in the grass at 911 Elmhurst
`
`Avenue. A crowd then directed the officer to McDuffie, who was unresponsive,
`
`located in front of 916 Elmhurst Avenue. The officer observed bleeding and
`
`several gunshot wounds on McDuffie, and commenced cardiopulmonary
`
`resuscitation (CPR). McDuffie and Ballard were both transported to Frankford-
`
`Torresdale Hospital, where McDuffie was pronounced dead on arrival, and
`
`Ballard was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.
`
`Doctor Zhonghue Hua conducted McDuffie’s autopsy. McDuffie was
`
`nineteen years old and suffered five gunshot wounds, including one each to
`
`his forehead above the hairline, his left upper back, his right flank, his right
`
`kneecap, and a graze wound to his right upper chest. Doctor Hua determined
`
`the fatal injury was the gunshot wound to his right flank, which punctured his
`
`kidney. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/11/19, at 193-94. Intact bullets were removed from
`
`McDuffie’s kneecap, head, and abdomen, and were turned over to
`
`investigators. Doctor Hua concluded McDuffie was still alive at the time he
`
`was shot in the head due to evidence of brain bleeding, that the cause of death
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`was multiple gunshot wounds, and that the manner of death was homicide.
`
`Id. at 215.
`
`Police additionally removed two bullets from 914 Elmhurst Avenue—one
`
`was lodged in the siding of the residence; the other entered a window,
`
`proceeded through the kitchen, through a box of cereal, and into the wall
`
`before striking a flue and falling onto the utility room floor. See N.T. Jury
`
`Trial, 3/6/19, at 212-23, 227. Eric Nelson, of the Montgomery County
`
`Detectives,7 conducted a forensic examination of all the recovered bullets.
`
`The bullet recovered from the utility room floor and the one recovered from
`
`McDuffie’s skull were discharged from a .32 H&R revolver found by police in
`
`Goddard’s apartment. The fatal bullet recovered from McDuffie’s abdominal
`
`wall was shot from the .38 Rossi Special firearm, which was recovered from a
`
`grill behind 703 Winder Drive.8 The other bullets recovered from McDuffie’s
`
`____________________________________________
`
`7 Detective Nelson explained that, although he works for the Montgomery
`County Detectives, he often does work for the “surrounding counties,”
`including Bucks County. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 213.
`
` 8
`
` In the course of investigation, police officers reviewed video footage from
`pole cameras near the scene of the shooting. In the footage, police observed
`Williams, James, and Skelton run away from the shooting and enter the
`backyard of 703 Winder Drive, remain off-camera for one minute and thirty
`seconds while in the yard, and reemerge on camera travelling further down
`Winder Drive. The footage of Williams running shows his hands located
`around his belt area prior to entering the rear yard of 703 Winder Drive, but
`after leaving, his hands were no longer in his belt area. Police were dispatched
`to that address, where the owner of the property consented to a search. Police
`noticed a grill, which was completely covered in dirt and grime, except for the
`left handle. After searching the grill, police recovered a Rossi .38 Special
`revolver sticking out of the back near the propane tank. Skelton confirmed
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`right knee and the siding of 914 Elmhurst Avenue were not traced to a known
`
`firearm, but were revealed to have been fired from a firearm similar to a .38
`
`revolver or .9 mm pistol. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 232-39.
`
`Several days after the shooting, on May 8, 2019, police stopped Goddard
`
`and Goddard, Jr. in Croydon, Bucks County, in a silver GMC Envoy. N.T. Jury
`
`Trial, 3/13/19, at 79-80. The vehicle was registered to Taddia Hamilton,
`
`Goddard’s sister, who lived in Irvington, New Jersey. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19,
`
`at 153-54. Police discovered Goddard’s 2004 GMC Yukon in the vicinity of
`
`Hamilton’s residence in New Jersey. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19, at 160-66.
`
`Police searched Goddard’s apartment and discovered a large variety of
`
`lawfully-owned firearms, including a .32 H&R revolver, and a large supply of
`
`ammunition. Id. at 126.
`
`Police also sought Goddard’s historical cell site data. The data revealed
`
`two incoming calls on May 4, 2018 at 7:16 and 7:17 p.m., and showed the
`
`phone’s location to be in Bristol Township, Bucks County. Two more calls
`
`occurred at 7:38 and 7:39 p.m., revealing the phone was in New Jersey. N.T.
`
`Jury Trial, 3/11/19, at 267-68. Police discovered the phone was then
`
`transported into the Brooklyn/Long Island area of New York City at
`
`approximately 9:35 p.m. that same day. Id. at 259-73. The next day, the
`
`phone traveled to Irvington, New Jersey at approximately 2:20 p.m., where it
`
`____________________________________________
`
`through testimony at trial that Williams was the only one who approached the
`grill when the three individuals were in the rear yard of 703 Winder Drive.
`See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/8/19, at 171-73.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`remained until it returned to the Philadelphia area on May 7, 2018. Id. at
`
`275; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, at 11-12, 17-21. While Goddard’s phone was
`
`in Irvington, New Jersey, Goddard, Jr.’s phone remained in the New York City
`
`area, until it, too, returned to the Philadelphia area on May 7, 2018. N.T. Jury
`
`Trial, 3/12/19, at 17-21.
`
`Police searched Goddard’s phone and found numerous internet searches
`
`conducted in the days following the shootings, including queries regarding:
`
`self-defense; law enforcement’s capabilities in unlocking cellular phones,
`
`including unlocking them remotely; Pennsylvania Stand Your Ground law; and
`
`searches related to George Zimmerman. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/19/19, at 129-32.
`
`On May 6, 2018, the Commonwealth charged Goddard with various
`
`crimes relating to the shooting incident. On July 18, 2018, at the preliminary
`
`hearing, the court permitted the Commonwealth to amend the charges, and
`
`held all charges for court, docketing the case at docket number 4365-2018.
`
`On August 14, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information reflecting
`
`the amendments.9
`
`On March 4, 2019, the court held a hearing prior to the commencement
`
`of trial to resolve outstanding pretrial matters. At that hearing, the court
`
`____________________________________________
`
`9 The information charged Goddard as follows: Count 1 – criminal attempt to
`commit criminal homicide; Count 2 – aggravated assault; Count 3 – discharge
`of a firearm into an occupied structure; Count 4 – PIC; Count 5 – possession
`of weapon; and Count 6 – REAP.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`granted the Commonwealth’s motion to consolidate Goddard’s case with the
`
`two cases against Joseph Williams.
`
`A joint jury trial commenced on March 4, 2019, and concluded on March
`
`22, 2019. Goddard testified in his own defense. See N.T. Jury Trial, 3/19/19,
`
`at 201-314; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at 5-113.
`
`Goddard testified that he was at his brother’s residence on Weston
`
`Avenue, down the street from where the shooting occurred, when he heard
`
`the first shots. Upon hearing the shooting, Goddard decided to run to his
`
`vehicle to retrieve his firearm, and then proceeded to the location of where he
`
`heard the shots. On arriving at the scene, Goddard saw his son on the ground
`
`with blood all over him, with an unknown individual—later identified as
`
`McDuffie—on top of him. Goddard ordered McDuffie off Goddard, Jr., and shot
`
`McDuffie twice when he failed to comply. Goddard testified that he shot
`
`McDuffie when he was still on top of Goddard, Jr. N.T. Jury Trial, 3/20/19, at
`
`62. Goddard explained neither how the bullet entered the front of McDuffie’s
`
`head if he was shot from behind, nor how a bullet fired from his weapon
`
`entered Coleman’s home. Id. at 62-63, 103-04. Goddard further testified
`
`that his trip to New York was pre-planned, as demonstrated by the advance
`
`notice to, and receipt of permission from, Goddard, Jr.’s, probation officer.
`
`Goddard also clarified that he is a licensed gun owner and frequently went
`
`shooting at a local gun range. He also testified that at one point Goddard, Jr.,
`
`took one of his weapons without permission, and Goddard promptly reported
`
`that incident to police. He testified further that, because of various incidents
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`that occurred between his son and Wilson, as well as his observations of a
`
`verbal altercation that occurred during a basketball game, Goddard was
`
`concerned about possible violent retribution against Goddard, Jr. N.T. Jury
`
`Trial, 3/19/19, at 242-52. During the trial, the court granted the
`
`Commonwealth’s motion to nolle prosequi the charges of aggravated assault
`
`and possession of a weapon. At the close of deliberations, the jury convicted
`
`Goddard of the above-stated offenses.
`
`On June 13, 2019, the court sentenced Goddard on Count 1 (criminal
`
`attempt to commit homicide) to 9 to 18 years’ incarceration; on Count 3
`
`(discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure) to 3½ to 7 years’
`
`incarceration, to be served consecutively to the sentence on Count 1; and to
`
`no additional penalty for REAP and PIC.
`
`On June 19, 2019, Goddard filed a post-sentence motion, which the
`
`court denied on June 24, 2019. On July 20, 2019, Goddard filed a timely
`
`notice of appeal. The court appointed Goddard new appellate counsel on July
`
`23, 2019, and ordered Goddard to file a concise statement of errors
`
`complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). After several
`
`extensions, counsel filed the Rule 1925(b) statement on February 12, 2020,
`
`and the court then filed a joint opinion as to both Goddard’s and Williams’
`
`appeals on March 3, 2020.
`
`On appeal, Goddard presents the following issues for our review:
`
`1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt commit an abuse of discretion when it
`failed to hold separate trials for [Goddard] and [Williams,] []
`when much of the testimony regarding [Williams’] actions[,] as
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`well as highly prejudicial letters and music[,] would not have
`been permitted in a case against Goddard as a sole defendant?
`
`2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in imposing consecutive sentences,
`both in the aggravated range of the guidelines, despite the
`fact[s] that [Goddard] had no prior record and that he acted in
`the heat of the moment without significant premeditation?
`
`Appellant’s Brief, at 6.
`
`
`
`Goddard first claims he is entitled to a new trial because the court
`
`abused its discretion when it granted the Commonwealth’s motion to
`
`consolidate his case with the two cases against his co-defendant, Williams.
`
`Specifically, Goddard notes that evidence that was only arguably admissible
`
`against Williams was certainly not admissible against himself—including the
`
`introduction of a letter, a shirt, and a song, tending to prove Williams’ identity
`
`as Ballard’s and McDuffie’s murderer. Goddard contends that the racially-
`
`charged language in the letter and the song, repeated use of racial slurs and
`
`the term “savage,” and references to murder unfairly prejudiced him in the
`
`eyes of the jury. Goddard supports his claim of unfair prejudice by noting:
`
`the Commonwealth did not allege or charge a conspiracy between Williams
`
`and himself; their actions were wholly unrelated; and, Williams was charged
`
`with being a person not to possess a firearm,10 whereas Goddard was a lawful
`
`gun owner.
`
`We review a trial court’s decision to consolidate separate indictments
`
`under an abuse of discretion standard. Commonwealth v. Collins, 703 A.2d
`
`418, 422 (Pa. 1997). “Whether or not separate indictments should be
`
`____________________________________________
`
`10 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`consolidated for trial is within the sole discretion of the trial court and such
`
`discretion will be reversed only for a manifest abuse of discretion or prejudice
`
`and clear injustice to the defendant.” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 864
`
`A.2d 460, 481 (Pa. 2004).
`
`Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 582 governs when the trial
`
`court may join informations and try them together, and states:
`
` (1) Offenses charged in separate indictments or informations
`may be tried together if:
`
`(a) the evidence of each of the offenses would be
`admissible in a separate trial for the other and is capable of
`separation by the jury so that there is no danger of
`confusion; or
`
`(b) the offenses charged are based on the same act or
`transaction.
`
`(2) Defendants charged in separate indictments or informations
`may be tried together if they are alleged to have participated in
`the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or
`transactions constituting an offense or offenses.
`
`Pa.R.Crim.P. 582(A). Conversely, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure
`
`583 governs when the trial court may sever informations and try them
`
`separately, and states: “The court may order separate trials of offenses or
`
`defendants, or provide other appropriate relief, if it appears that any party
`
`may be prejudiced by offenses or defendants being tried together.”
`
`Pa.R.Crim.P. 583.
`
`In Commonwealth v. Lark, 543 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1988), our Supreme
`
`Court set forth a three-part test explaining how trial courts should evaluate a
`
`motion to sever or a motion opposing joinder:
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`Where the defendant moves to sever offenses not based on the
`same act or transaction that have been consolidated in a single
`indictment or information, or opposes joinder of separate
`indictments or informations, the court must therefore determine:
`(1) whether the evidence of each of the offenses would be
`admissible in a separate trial for the other; (2) whether such
`evidence is capable of separation by the jury so as to avoid danger
`of confusion; and, if the answers to these inquiries are in the
`affirmative, (3) whether the defendant will be unduly prejudiced
`by the consolidation of offenses.
`
`Id. at 496-97.
`
`A defendant requesting a separate trial “must show real potential for
`
`prejudice rather than mere speculation.” Commonwealth v. Rivera, 773
`
`A.2d 131, 137 (Pa. 2001). “This determination is left to the discretion of the
`
`court[,] which balances the inconvenience and expense to the government of
`
`separate trials against prejudice to the defendants in a joint trial, and the
`
`burden is on the movant to show prejudice.” Commonwealth v. Lambert,
`
`603 A.2d 568, 573 (Pa. 1992).
`
`With regard to hostility between co-defendants, and conflicting versions
`
`of events as described between co-defendants, the Court has further
`
`explained that
`
`the fact that defendants have conflicting versions of what took
`place, or the extents to which they participated in it, is a reason
`for[,] rather than against[,] a joint trial because the truth may be
`more easily determined if all are tried together. Instead,
`severance should be granted only where the defenses are so
`antagonistic that they are irreconcilable—i.e., the jury essentially
`would be forced to disbelieve the testimony on behalf of one
`defendant in order to believe the defense of his co-defendant.
`
`Commonwealth v. Brown, 925 A.2d 147, 161-62 (Pa. 2007) (internal
`
`citations and quotation marks omitted). “The general policy of the law is to
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`encourage joinder of offenses and consolidation of indictments when judicial
`
`economy can thereby be effected, especially when the result will be to avoid
`
`the
`
`expensive
`
`and
`
`time-consuming
`
`duplication
`
`of
`
`evidence.”
`
`Commonwealth v. Patterson, 546 A.2d 596, 600 (Pa. 1988).
`
`In Patterson, our Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s decision
`
`to deny severance even though the charges against the Appellee and his co-
`
`defendant arose out of separate incidents, and evidence against the co-
`
`defendant would not have been admissible against the Appellee had they been
`
`tried separately. Id. at 601. The Supreme Court’s ruling reversed this Court’s
`
`ruling, and reinstated the trial court’s decision favoring joinder, reasoning
`
`that: the trial was likely to be lengthy (five days), there existed an
`
`unnecessary burden on the young victim in having to testify in two separate
`
`lengthy trials, the court’s curative cautionary instructions dispelled any
`
`prejudicial effect on the Appellee from the introduction of evidence relating to
`
`his co-defendant, and the evidence pertaining to the co-defendant’s charge
`
`unmistakably and unequivocally pointed to the co-defendant only. Id.
`
`Here, we find the circumstances are substantially the same as those in
`
`Patterson. We note that Goddard’s and Williams’ joint trial lasted 15 days.
`
`Over that lengthy trial, thirty witnesses testified. Certainly, the vast majority
`
`of those witnesses would have been required for both trials against Williams
`
`and Goddard, had severance been permitted, due to the close temporal
`
`proximity of their criminal acts and the fact that they both shot the same
`
`victim. Moreover, many witnesses stated that they were not testifying
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`voluntarily, some out of fear of retaliation. See N.T. Pre-Trial Hearing,
`
`3/4/19, at 63-64, 66-68; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/8/19, at 18, 97, 168-73, 195-97,
`
`202-04; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/12/19, at 229-40, 290-94; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/13/19,
`
`at 11-16, 38-39, 46-47, 57-59; N.T. Jury Trial; 3/14/19, at 200, 234-36, 242;
`
`N.T. Jury Trial, 3/18/19, at 49-50, 53, 181-82, 236-37, 266-68. Further, we
`
`find that the court’s clear instructions dispelled any prejudicial effect on
`
`Goddard from the introduction of evidence relating to Williams,11 and that the
`
`____________________________________________
`
`11 The court cautioned the jury as follows:
`
`
`I want to address another matter with you. Yesterday we had
`Detective Frank Groome testify as a witness[. P]rior to his
`testimony you saw some evidence, a red T-shirt. Detective
`Groome highlighted the fact that [t]his T-shirt, which was found
`in a trash can, allegedly had a specific unique type of silkscreen
`logo on the front. You were made aware of that, and we also saw
`it as an exhibit.
`
`There was a letter that was written by this [d]efendant, Joseph
`Williams, and of that there is no dispute. You can accept that.
`And it has on it what appears to be a handwritten logo similar to
`the logo that is silkscreened on the T-shirt. Whether it is or not is
`a fact for you, but that’s my view of why the Commonwealth
`sought to introduce it. I believe, and they will argue if they
`choose, that that somehow establishes the identity of the
`owner of the T-shirt to Joseph Williams. But again, it’s for
`you to determine if that has been proven, and if, in fact, it
`is an important issue. In the end, what is important is a
`decision for you and you alone. You determine the weight to be
`given any evidence, and I’ll discuss that with you at the end of the
`case.
`
`Having said that, in that letter there was a reference to a rap song.
`The Commonwealth will argue that this again establishes the
`identity of the writer of the letter and is connected to the
`T-shirt, but again, I’m not saying it’s so; only what I believe the
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`evidence against Williams and Goddard was clearly separable. See
`
`Patterson, supra; see also Lark, supra. The jury was never placed in the
`
`impossible position of disbelieving the testimony on behalf of either Goddard
`
`or Williams in order to believe the defense of the other. See Brown, supra.
`
`____________________________________________
`
`Commonwealth will argue. I permitted the playing of this rap song
`for you, and the Commonwealth provided two pages of lyrics for
`that song. Now, it is nothing more than a rap song, and I would
`not want you to think that it had any special value or evidentiary
`importance in and of itself. It is clear that [Williams] did not
`write this song. He only referred to it in a letter, which
`apparently bears the same logo as the T-shirt.
`
`I’ll be candid with all of you. We are all adults. This song is
`somewhat graphic in some measure, but it has no implications
`whatsoever as to the ultimate issue in this case, which is, has the
`Commonwealth proven beyond a reasonable doubt each and
`every element of every crime charged as against [] Joseph
`Williams, and [] Gary Goddard. The song, without more, is just
`one of many pieces of evidence you’ll consider, but it has a limited
`purpose, and I didn’t want you to draw the inference that this song
`proves anything. It certainly does not stand alone, just a part and
`parcel of[,] and it absolutely does not implicate, in any fashion, in
`any of these crimes, either Mr. Williams or Mr. Goddard, and I
`would not want you to think that it did.
`
`So having told you that, it is only offered for a limited purpose. In
`the end, whether or not it has evidentiary value for you will be
`determined, but I can tell you now, and I can’t stress it enough,
`Mr. Williams did not write this song. No one is suggesting he
`endorses any of the things said in the lyrics, and it absolutely has
`no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he is guilty of all, any,
`or none of these crimes. I just wanted you to know that.
`
`N.T. Jury Trial, 3/19/19, at 11-14 (emphasis added). We note the court’s off-
`hand references to Goddard were made within the context of the trial
`generally, and did not associate Goddard with, or connect Goddard to,
`Williams’ letter, the t-shirt, or the song, which were all admitted to prove
`Williams’ identity as Ballard and McDuffie’s murderer.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`Moreover, that the Commonwealth did not allege or charge a conspiracy
`
`between Williams and Goddard, and that their actions and motivations were
`
`distinct at the scene of the shootings, is of no moment. See Appellant’s Brief,
`
`at 24-25. Indeed, this is the rare case where co-defendants tried by joint-
`
`trial are not charged with conspiracy; nevertheless, no such charge is required
`
`for joinder. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 582(A)(2).
`
`Additionally, evidence of other crimes may be admissible in the context
`
`of joining separate indictments. See Collins, supra at 423 (evidence of other
`
`crimes admissible in joint trial if demonstrative of: (1) motive; (2) intent; (3)
`
`absence of mistake; (4) common scheme, plan, or design; (5) identity; or (6)
`
`where such evidence is part of history of case and forms natural development
`
`of facts.). The evidence tending to show Williams’ guilt formed the history of
`
`Goddard’s case, was part of the natural development of the facts, and helped
`
`to prove each shooter’s relative culpability; indeed, without evidence of
`
`Williams’ fatal shots, Goddard might have been charged and convicted of
`
`murder, rather than with only an attempt.
`
` Also, the evidence tending to show that Williams unlawfully obtained
`
`his firearm was kept distinct from the evidence introduced against Goddard.
`
`Not only did the Commonwealth agree that Goddard obtained his firearms
`
`legally, see N.T. Jury Trial, 3/11/19, at 125-30; N.T. Jury Trial, 3/19/19, at
`
`63-65, 214-29, but also, the court severed Williams’ charge of person not to
`
`possess, and ultimately permitted the Commonwealth to withdraw it.
`
`Therefore, the jury was never aware of that charge.
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined
`
`Goddard suffered no unfair prejudice under these circumstances. See
`
`Lambert, supra. Consequently, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial
`
`court’s joinder of the Commonwealth’s cases against Goddard and Williams.
`
`See Lark, supra; Collins, supra at 422. See also Commonwealth v.
`
`Colon, 846 A.2d 747, 753 (Pa. Super 2004) (“It would impair both the
`
`efficiency and the fairness of the criminal justice system to require that
`
`prosecutors bring separate proceedings, presenting the same evidence again
`
`and again, requiring victims and witnesses to repeat the inconvenience (and
`
`sometimes trauma) of testifying, and randomly favoring the last tried
`
`defendants who have the advantage of knowing the prosecution’s case
`
`beforehand. Joint trials generally serve the interests of justice by avoiding
`
`inconsistent verdicts and enabling more accurate assessment of relative
`
`culpability.”) (ellipsis omitted).
`
`In his second issue on appeal, Goddard raises a challenge to the
`
`discretionary aspects of his sentence. We note that the right to appeal the
`
`discretionary aspects of one’s sentence is not absolute; the jurisdiction of this
`
`Court must be invoked, which we evaluate via the following four-part test:
`
`(1) whether appellant has filed a timely notice of appeal, see
`Pa.R.A.P. 902 and 903; (2) whether the issue was properly
`preserved at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify
`sentence, see Pa.R.Crim.P. 720; (3) whether appellant’s brief has
`a fatal defect, see Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f); and (4) whether there is a
`substantial question that the sentence appealed from is not
`appropriate under the Sentencing Code. The determination of
`whether a particular issue raises a substantial question is to be
`evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Generally, however, in order
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`to establish a substantial question, the appellant must show
`actions by the sentencing court inconsistent with the Sentencing
`Code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the
`sentencing process.
`
`Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 20 A.3d 1215, 1220-21 (Pa. Super. 2011)
`
`(some internal citations, quotations marks, and footnotes omitted).
`
`Here, Goddard filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of his
`
`sentence, followed by a timely notice of appeal to this Court. He has also
`
`included in his brief a concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance
`
`of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of his sentence pursuant
`
`to Rule 2119(f). See Appellant’s Brief, at 19. Accordingly, we must now
`
`determine whether Goddard has raised a substantial question that his
`
`sentence is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.
`
`We determine whether the appellant has raised a substantial question
`
`on a case-by-case basis. Commonwealth v. Paul, 925 A.2d 825, 828 (Pa.
`
`Super. 2007). “We cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented
`
`and the prefatory Rule 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial
`
`question exists.” Commonwealth v. Radecki, 180 A.3d 441, 468 (Pa.
`
`Super. 2018) (brackets omitted).
`
`In his Rule 2119(f) statement, Goddard states that: “The guidelines for
`
`sentencing are meant as a guidepost to the [c]ourt rather than as a series of
`
`required numbers that must be applied consecutively”; “[t]he [c]ourt has
`
`discretion to deviate from the guidelines to promote justice, but the [c]ourt
`
`may not sentence Appellant for crimes for which he was not convicted;” and,
`
`“[t]he [t]rial [c]ourt’s imposition of consecutive sentences in the aggravated
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`J-A26017-20
`
`range of the sentencing guidelines was prejudicial on its face in that the
`
`[c]ourt obviously believed [Goddard] had fled the scene despite testimony to
`
`the contrary.” Appellant’s Brief, at 19.
`
`Standing alone, Goddard’s Rule 2119(f) statement fails to raise a
`
`substantial question. See Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 117 A.3d 763, 769
`
`(Pa. Super. 2015) (en banc) (“A court’s exercise of dis