Opinion
J-S67019-17 No. 3272 EDA 2016
12-29-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JOSHUA JORDAN, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 15, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012114-2013 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., MUSMANNO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Joshua Jordan ("Jordan") appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed following his conviction of first-degree murder, possession of a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia, and possession of an instrument of crime. We affirm.
See 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502, 6106, 6108, 907.
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural background, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/16, at 1-4.
Jordan filed this timely appeal, and a court-ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of matters complained of on appeal.
On appeal, Jordan raises the following claims for our review:
1. Was the evidence presented was [sic] insufficient to sustain a conviction because the witness statements were inconsistent, unreliable, and failed to prove [Jordan's] participation in the alleged crime?Brief for Appellant at 7 (capitalization omitted).
2. Was the weight of the evidence presented not sufficient to support [Jordan's] conviction?
3. Did the trial court err in overruling defense counsel's objection concerning [Jordan's] mailing of discovery he received to his parents[,] since it gave rise to an impermissible inference that the discovery mailed was being used to intimidate potential Commonwealth witnesses?
We will address Jordan's first two claims together. In his first claim, Jordan contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. Brief for Appellant at 11-14. In his second claim, Jordan asserts that his convictions are against the weight of the evidence. Id. at 14-15.
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Jordan's sufficiency and weight claims, and determined that they were waived, as Jordan failed to specify in his Concise Statement which of his convictions were not supported by sufficient evidence or were against the weight of the evidence. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/16, at 4-5.
This Court may find waiver where a concise statement is too vague. See Commonwealth v. Hansley , 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011). "When a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review." Commonwealth v. Dowling , 778 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citation omitted). "A Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no Concise Statement at all." Id. at 686-87.
Additionally, as this Court has consistently held,
[i]f Appellant wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was insufficient, then the 1925(b) statement needs to specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient. This Court can then analyze the element or elements on appeal. [Where a] 1925(b) statement [] does not specify the allegedly unproven elements[,] . . . the sufficiency issue is waived [on appeal].Commonwealth v. Williams , 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa. Super. 2008) (quoting Commonwealth v. Flores , 921 A.2d 517, 522-523 (Pa. Super. 2007)). The same is true for a challenge to the weight of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Freeman , 128 A.3d 1231, 1248-49 (Pa. Super. 2015).
Here, Jordan collectively stated his sufficiency and weight claims in his Concise Statement as follows: "The evidence and the weight of the evidence were insufficient to sustain the verdict." Concise Statement, 11/2/16, at 1. The Statement thus failed to specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was purportedly insufficient or against the weight of the evidence. See Williams , 959 A.2d at 1257; Freeman , 128 A.3d at 1248-49. Given that Jordan was convicted of multiple crimes, we agree with the trial court's determination that Jordan's sufficiency and weight claims are waived based on the vagueness of his Concise Statement. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/16, at 4-5. Accordingly, we affirm on this basis as to Jordan's first two claims. See id.
Had we not found waiver based on the vagueness of Jordan's Concise Statement, we would have concluded that Jordan's brief suffers from the same deficiencies. In his brief, Jordan failed to specify which crimes, let alone which element or elements of those crimes, were unsupported by, or against the weight of, the evidence. See Brief for Appellant at 11-14, 14-15. The Rules of Appellate Procedure state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). Appellate arguments which fail to adhere to these rules may be considered waived, and arguments which are not appropriately developed are waived. See Commonwealth v. Murchinson , 899 A.2d 1159, 1160 (Pa. Super. 2006) (deeming appellant's claims waived under Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) because he did not develop meaningful argument with specific references to relevant caselaw and to the record to support his claims); see also Commonwealth v. Cornelius , 856 A.2d 62, 77 (Pa. Super. 2004) (declining to review appellant's claim where there was limited explanation and development of the argument). --------
In his third claim, Jordan contends that "the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in overruling defense counsel's objection concerning [Jordan's] mailing [of] discovery he received to his parents[,] since it gave rise to an impermissible inference that the discovery was being used to intimidate potential Commonwealth witnesses, which was irrelevant in that its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value." Brief for Appellant at 16. Jordan asserts that "the Commonwealth's theory was that [Jordan's] parents would be able to contact potential Commonwealth witnesses in an effort to change their testimony." Id. Jordan claims that "the [t]rial [c]ourt's overruling defense counsel's objection cannot be deemed harmless error to the extent that Kenneth White gave a different description of the shooter from [Jordan;] there was no physical evidence to connect [Jordan] to the crime[;] and that [Jordan] testified that he did not shoot the [d]ecedent." Id.
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Jordan's third claim, set forth the relevant law, and determined that the claim lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/3/16, at 5-7. We agree with the reasoning of the trial court, and affirm on this basis as to Jordan's third claim. See id.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/29/17
Image materials not available for display.