Opinion
J-S66008-18 No. 333 EDA 2017
12-19-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. ANTON SWEENEY Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 13, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0007479-2015 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., PANELLA, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Appellant, Anton Sweeney, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his bench trial convictions for aggravated assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person ("REAP"), and terroristic threats. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a), 2701(a), 2705, 2706(a)(1), respectively.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, we add the court ordered Appellant on February 7, 2017, to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal per Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b); Appellant timely complied on February 24, 2017.
Appellant filed post-sentence motions on September 23, 2016, and a premature notice of appeal on January 24, 2017, before the court ruled on the post-sentence motions. The post-sentence motions were denied by operation of law on January 25, 2017. Thus, Appellant's appeal relates forward to January 25, 2017, and there are no jurisdictional impediments to our review. See Commonwealth v. Borrero , 692 A.2d 158 (Pa.Super. 1997) (explaining general rule that if defendant files timely post-sentence motion, judgment of sentence does not become final for purposes of appeal until trial court disposes of motion or motion is denied by operation of law). See also Commonwealth v. Ratushny , 17 A.3d 1269, 1271 n.4 (Pa.Super. 2011) (explaining if court denies appellant's post-sentence motion following filing of premature notice of appeal, Superior Court will treat appellant's premature notice of appeal as having been filed after entry of order disposing of post-sentence motion).
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
[WHETHER THE] EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO FIND [APPELLANT] GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT[?](Appellant's Brief at 3).
[WHETHER] THE VERDICT RENDERED WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL[?]
In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to all of his convictions. In his argument, however, Appellant appears to challenge only the sufficiency of the evidence regarding his aggravated assault conviction and fails to develop any argument concerning his remaining convictions. Therefore, Appellant waives any challenge to the sufficiency of evidence as to his remaining convictions. See Commonwealth v. Beshore , 916 A.2d 1128 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc), appeal denied, 603 Pa. 679, 982 A.2d 509 (2007) (stating failure to develop adequate argument in appellate brief may result in waiver of claim).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Roxanne E. Covington, we conclude Appellant's issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed February 20, 2018, at 4-8) (finding: (1) Victim's testimony indicated Appellant knew what he was doing when he repeatedly struck Victim; Victim said his jaw was broken and showed Appellant that Victim was bleeding, but Appellant thought Victim bit his own tongue and continued to hit Victim; combination of perceived disrespect by Appellant, Appellant's repeated threats of violence masked as discipline, obvious advantage in age, weight, and size of Appellant over Victim, along with Appellant's words that more violence would follow if Victim did not show Appellant respect, elevated attack to level of aggravated assault; additionally, Victim suffered multiple fractures, including fractures in his jaw, hand, chest, and neck; following attack, Victim's food intake was limited, and he could not move his jaw without pain for several months; under these circumstances, Appellant should have reasonably anticipated that punching and choking Victim, who is one foot shorter and weighs sixty pounds less than Appellant, could cause serious bodily injury to Victim; (2) fact-finder found testimony of Victim and Victim's sister credible and gave that testimony more weight than testimony of defense witness; in light of trial evidence, it does not shock court's sense of justice that fact-finder weighed evidence against Appellant and in favor of conviction). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/19/18
Image materials not available for display.