Submitted June 8, 2016
from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Criminal
Division (CF3-21539-14) (Hon. Todd E. Edelman, Trial Judge)
Sicilia C. Englert was on the brief for appellant.
Channing D. Phillips, United States Attorney, and Elizabeth
Trosman, Christine M. Macey, and Kristina L. Ament, Assistant
United States Attorneys, were on the brief for appellee.
Thompson and Beckwith, Associate Judges, and King, Senior
case was submitted to the court on the transcript of record
and the briefs filed, and without presentation of oral
argument. On consideration whereof, and for the reasons set
forth in the opinion filed this date, it is now hereby
and ADJUDGED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Phyllis D. Thompson Associate Judge.
December 15, 2014, while attempting to make a restaurant food
delivery, Gregory Dowell was attacked by two men who
repeatedly punched and kicked him in the head and elsewhere
before taking his iPhone, wallet, and vest. One of the men
also rode away on Dowell's bicycle. Dowell reported the
incident to the police, who ran a check to identify any
individuals whose GPS monitoring devices showed them to have
been in the area at the time of the incident. Through that
check, the police learned that appellant, Stephon Brown, had
been in the area around that time. They went to
appellant's house, found Dowell's bicycle in the
backyard, and arrested appellant. Five days after the
beating, Dowell, who had been experiencing headaches since
the attack, went to the hospital and was diagnosed with a
April 21, 2015, after a trial before the Honorable Todd E.
Edelman, a jury convicted appellant of robbery and assault
with significant bodily injury. Appellant now argues that the
evidence was insufficient to establish he was the perpetrator
of the robbery and assault. He also argues that the
victim's injury was not "significant" because
Dowell "was not hospitalized and received no medical
treatment[.]" We affirm.
court's review of sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims is
de novo. See Nero v. United States, 73 A.3d
153, 157 (D.C. 2013). We "view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the government, mindful of the jury's
right to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw
justifiable inferences of fact." Blair v. United
States, 114 A.3d 960, 976 (D.C. 2015) (quoting
Robinson v. United States, 506 A.2d 572, 573 (D.C.
1986)). To prevail on a claim that the evidence was
insufficient for conviction, an appellant "must
establish that the government presented no evidence upon
which a reasonable mind could find guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt." Carter v. United States, 957 A.2d 9, 14
(D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). "This is
a heavy burden." Blair, 114 A.3d at 976
(internal quotation marks omitted). "[T]he
government's evidence need not negate every possible
inference of innocence to be sufficient." Smith v.
United States, 899 A.2d 119, 121, 123-24 (D.C. 2006)
(internal quotation marks ...