Opinion
J-S18010-18 No. 897 WDA 2017
07-12-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. BILLY RAY GORDON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 25, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-25-CR-0003070-2016 BEFORE: STABILE, MUSMANNO, JJ., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant Billy Ray Gordon appeals from the May 25, 2017 judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County ("trial court"), following his jury convictions for first-degree murder, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"), possession of instruments of crime ("PIC"), abuse of a corpse, and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence. Upon review, we affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2501(a), 2702(a)(1), 2705, 907(a), 5510, and 4910(1), respectively.
The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed, and thoroughly recounted in the trial court's opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/8/17, 1-13. Briefly, in connection with the stabbing death of his wife, Linda Gordon, Appellant was found guilty by a jury of the above-mentioned crimes. On May 25, 2017, the trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Appellant did not file any post-sentence motions. Appellant timely appealed to this Court. The trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Appellant complied, asserting, inter alia:
The trial court merged the sentences for aggravated assault and REAP with the life imprisonment sentence for first-degree murder and imposed separate consecutive sentences for PIC (one to four years in prison), abuse of corpse (one to two years in prison) and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence (six to twenty-four months' imprisonment).
[I.] That the evidence produced at trial by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was insufficient to support convictions in this matter with first degree murder (Murder 1), aggravated assault, [REAP], [PIC], abuse of corpse and tampering with or fabricating physical evidence[.]Rule 1925(b) Statement, 7/7/17 (unnecessary capitalizations omitted) (sic). In response, the trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
On appeal, Appellant repeats the same sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue for our review.
"A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law." Commonwealth v. Widmer , 744 A.2d 745, 751 (Pa. 2000).
The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact-finder. In addition, we note that the facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence. Any doubts regarding a defendant's guilt may be resolved by the fact-finder unless the evidence is so weak and
inconclusive that as a matter of law no probability of fact may be drawn from the combined circumstances. The Commonwealth may sustain its burden of proving every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt by means of wholly circumstantial evidence. Moreover, in applying the above test, the entire record must be evaluated and all evidence actually received must be considered. Finally, the finder of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.Commonwealth v. Antidormi , 84 A.3d 736, 756 (Pa. Super. 2014), appeal denied , 95 A.3d 275 (Pa. 2014).
Before we may address the merits of Appellant's sufficiency claim, we must determine whether he has preserved it for our review. It is settled that to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements of the crime upon which the appellant alleges the evidence was insufficient. See Commonwealth v. Garland , 63 A.3d 339, 334 (Pa. Super. 2013). "Such specificity is of particular importance in cases, where, as here, the appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous elements that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt." Garland , 63 A.3d at 344 (citations omitted). In Garland , the appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement simply stated, "[t]he evidence was legally insufficient to support the convictions." Id. The panel found the claim waived, noting, among other things, that the appellant "failed to specify which elements he was challenging in his Rule 1925(b) statement." Id. Moreover, given this Court's desire to apply Rule 1925 in a "predictable, uniform fashion," we have determined that waiver applies even where, as here, the Commonwealth fails to object and the trial court addresses the issue in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Commonwealth v. Roche , 153 A.3d 1063, 1071-72 (Pa. Super. 2017), appeal denied , 169 A.3d 599 (Pa. 2017); see Commonwealth v. Tyack , 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa. Super. 2015) (holding that Tyack's "boilerplate" concise statement declaring "that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction" was too vague even where Tyack was convicted only of one crime).
Instantly, Appellant's Rule 1925(b) statement, as detailed above, lacks specificity. In particular, Appellant fails to set forth in his Rule 1925(b) statement the elements of each of the six crimes that the Commonwealth allegedly did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt following a four-day jury trial. Accordingly, we conclude that Appellant has waived his sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim for lack of specificity. Indeed, as noted, we have held appellants waived such claims for lack of specificity under less egregious circumstances.
Even if Appellant's sufficiency claim was preserved, he still would not be entitled to relief. After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we conclude that the trial court accurately and thoroughly addressed the merits of Appellant's claim. See Trial Court Opinion, 8/8/17, at 13-20. Accordingly, we affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence. We further direct that a copy of the trial court's August 9, 2017 opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 7/12/2018
Image materials not available for display.