Opinion
J-S61038-16 No. 303 WDA 2016
10-03-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WILLIAM JOHN COOPER, JR., Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 12, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Criminal Division, No(s): CP-07-CR-0001197-2015 BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
William John Cooper, Jr. ("Cooper") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property. We affirm.
On April 2, 2015, John Long ("Long") took a Speed Buggy lunchbox, with orange "smiley face" stickers affixed, to Violet's Auction House ("Auction House"), to sell on his behalf at an auction scheduled for that day. The lunchbox was placed in the back gallery of Auction House, and photographs of the lunchbox were displayed on AuctionZip. Upon returning to check on the lunchbox, Long discovered that it was missing.
Cooper, an employee of Auction House, was working on the day of the auction, and had access to the back gallery. When Long discovered that the lunchbox was missing, Cooper told him that it had already been sold. Two days after the scheduled auction, Long recognized the lunchbox on the Blair County Yard Sale website. Long arranged to purchase the lunchbox, and Cooper handed Long the lunchbox at the exchange site.
Subsequently, Trooper Jeffrey Hileman ("Hileman") conducted two separate interviews with Cooper, the second of which was recorded. Relevantly to this appeal, Cooper requested a copy of the second interview, but the recording had been erased. Cooper was charged with the above-mentioned crimes. Cooper filed a Motion in Limine, requesting that the trial court suppress any statements made by Cooper during the second interview. The trial court denied the Motion.
Following a bench trial, Cooper was convicted of theft by unlawful taking and receiving stolen property. The trial court ordered Cooper to pay a $2,000 fine and the costs of prosecution.
Cooper filed a timely Notice of Appeal and a court-ordered Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
On appeal, Cooper raises the following questions for our review:
I. Whether the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to allow the court to conclude that [Cooper] was guilty of theft[] and receiving stolen property[?]Brief for Appellant at 4.
II. Whether the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of statements made by [Cooper] when the Commonwealth failed to preserve the recording of these statements[?]
In his first claim, Cooper contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Id. Cooper argues that he purchased the lunchbox as part of a box that included several other items. Id. Cooper also asserts that the lunchbox could have been placed in the box by one of the many other people who were in the area where the lunchbox went missing. Id.
Here, Cooper's argument contains five sentences reiterating his defense, without providing any analysis or citation to the record or relevant legal authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (requiring that each point in an argument contain "such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent."). Cooper's bare assertions deprive this Court of a basis upon which to review his claims. "Although we might comb the record to assure that the elements of [Cooper's] convictions are established, absent some reasoned analysis from [Cooper] we decline to do so." Commonwealth v. Hakala , 900 A.2d 404, 407 (Pa. Super. 2006); see also Commonwealth v. Brewer , 876 A.2d 1029, 1035 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating that "[i]t is the [a]ppellant who has the burden of establishing his entitlement to relief by showing that the ruling of the trial court is erroneous under the evidence or the law.") (citation omitted). Accordingly, this claim is waived. See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 985 A.2d 915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (stating that "where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived."); see also Hakala , 900 A.2d at 407 (stating that "[i]t is not this Court's function or duty to become an advocate for the appellants.") (citation omitted).
Even if we considered Cooper's first claim, we would find that there was sufficient evidence to sustain Cooper's convictions, in accordance with the reasons set forth by the trial court. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/5/16, at 6-9.
In his second claim, Cooper asserts that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the introduction of statements he made during his second interview with police, where the Commonwealth failed to preserve the recording. Brief for Appellant at 8. Cooper claims that the Commonwealth acted in bad faith by failing to preserve the recording. Id.
Cooper again fails to provide an adequate discussion of his second claim with citations to the record. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); see also Hakala , supra.
Upon review, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Cooper's Motion, and we affirm upon the sound reasoning of the trial court as to this claim. See Trial Court Opinion, 4/5/16, at 4-6.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 10/3/2016
Image materials not available for display.