Opinion
J-S13009-17 No. 1071 EDA 2015
04-03-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. ALEJANDRO RUIZ CABRERA, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered December 18, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0008513-2013 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Alejandro Ruiz Cabrera, appeals from the judgment of sentence of an aggregate term of 4 to 8 years' incarceration, followed by 10 years' probation, imposed after a jury convicted him of corrupt organizations, 18 Pa.C.S. § 911(b)(1), dealing in unlawful proceeds, 18 Pa.C.S. § 5111(a)(1), criminal use of a communication facility, 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a), possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (PWID), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(3), and criminal conspiracy to commit PWID, 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(a). We affirm.
We need not summarize the complicated facts and procedural history of this case, as the Honorable Thomas P. Rogers of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County sets forth a lengthy and detailed discussion of those matters in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 6/21/16, at 1-18. We only note that on appeal, Appellant raises the following three issues for our review:
(1). Whether the [trial] court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion when it denied [Appellant's] post[-]sentence motion for a new sentence because the sentence was unduly harsh and excessive?Appellant's Brief at 5 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
(2)[]. Whether the [trial] court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion when it denied [Appellant's] motion at trial and in [his] post[-]sentence motion[] for a new trial where the verdict was against the weight and sufficiency of [the] evidence and the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to find [Appellant] guilty of the crimes charged?
[(3)]. Whether the [trial] court committed an error of law and/or abuse of discretion when it allowed [evidence of] prior unadjudicated acts, via testimony of Trooper Martinez, alleged to have occurred in Berks County where Appellant would have had to waive his Fifth Amendment rights and in violation of Due Process to defend himself in Montgomery County having not yet been adjudicated in Berks County?
We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. Additionally, we have reviewed Judge Rogers' thorough and well-crafted opinion. We conclude that Judge Rogers accurately disposes of the issues presented by Appellant. We find no need to add anything further to Judge Rogers' well-reasoned analysis, especially considering the minimally developed, and legally unsupported, arguments that Appellant presents in his brief to this Court. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Rogers' opinion as our own and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence on that basis.
Indeed, we could conclude that Appellant has waived his first two issues for our review, based on his failure to provide any meaningful discussion in support of those claims. For instance, in regard to his challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence, Appellant only briefly summarizes certain statements made by him and the court at the sentencing proceeding, and then concedes that he "cannot specifically identify a manifest abuse of discretion" by the court in fashioning his term of incarceration. Appellant's Brief at 11. Additionally, in his second issue challenging the sufficiency and weight of the evidence to support his convictions, Appellant provides only four sentences of discussion, cites no legal authority, and does not even state which specific offense(s), or element(s) thereof, that the Commonwealth failed to prove. Accordingly, we could deem Appellant's first two issues abandoned or waived. See Commonwealth v. Hardy , 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007) (directing that an appellant must "present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review" and support those arguments "with pertinent discussion, ... references to the record and with citations to legal authorities[;]" where an appellant fails to meet these requirements, thus "imped[ing] our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived"). --------
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/3/2017
Image materials not available for display.