## Facts

- Charles Azim drove a car in North Philadelphia near Temple University with two passengers, Mylice James and Thomas Robinson.
- Azim stopped the car near student Jerry Tennenbaum; Robinson twice called to Tennenbaum from the passenger window to draw him closer.
- When Tennenbaum refused to approach, James and Robinson exited the car, assaulted Tennenbaum, caused bodily injury, and took his wallet.
- Azim stayed in the driver’s seat during the attack, keeping the vehicle ready to leave (engine running, lights on, doors open).
- After the wallet was taken, James and Robinson immediately fled in the car driven by Azim.
- Azim asserted he was merely a hired driver without knowledge of any criminal plan.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Azim knowingly joined a conspiracy to commit robbery and assault and was therefore liable for robbery, simple assault, and criminal conspiracy.
2. Whether Azim was entitled to post-conviction relief for alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel beyond the already-remedied failure to file a timely direct appeal.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgments of sentence for robbery and conspiracy (and the related convictions).
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to infer Azim’s agreement and knowing participation as the getaway driver.
- The court rejected Azim’s claim that he was merely an uninvolved driver.
- The court affirmed the denial of additional ineffective-assistance claims beyond the grant of nunc pro tunc appellate rights.

## Legal Principles

- Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence; an explicit agreement need not be shown by direct proof, and a “common understanding” may be inferred from conduct.
- Factors supporting an inference of conspiracy include association with co-actors, knowledge of the crime, presence at the scene, and participation in achieving the criminal objective.
- A getaway driver may be found an accomplice or conspirator where the circumstances reasonably support an inference that the driver knew of the planned crime and intentionally facilitated commission or escape.
- Appellate sufficiency review accepts as true the Commonwealth’s evidence and reasonable inferences; the conviction stands if any rational fact-finder could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Once a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy is established, the defendant may be held responsible for substantive crimes committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.

## Conclusion

The court held that Azim’s conduct in stopping for the victim, remaining in position while the robbery occurred nearby, keeping the car ready for immediate departure, and driving the assailants away permitted the jury to infer a shared plan to rob and assault; it therefore affirmed the convictions and denied further post-conviction relief.


Commonwealth v. Azim, 313 Pa. Super. 310, 459 A.2d 1244 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983)