J. S33010/14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
JAVIER RAMOS, : No. 1215 EDA 2013
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence, January 31, 2013,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County
Criminal Division at Nos. CP-39-CR-0002292-2012,
CP-39-CR-0002296-2012
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., OLSON AND STABILE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:FILED NOVEMBER 25, 2014
Appellant appeals the judgment of sentence entered following his
conviction for burglary, attempted burglary, criminal trespass, criminal
mischief, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and conspiracy,
which arose from three burglaries committed in Lehigh and Northampton
Counties in February and March of 2012. Finding no merit in the issues on
appeal, we will affirm.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
1. Was the jury’s verdict of “Guilty” at the end of
the trial based upon insufficient evidence
presented at trial, specifically as it relates to
counts number seven, eight, nine, eleven, and
twelve (7,8,9,11,12) in case 2296/2012?
2. Did the Trial Court err when it denied the
Appellant’s and Co-Defendant’s Motions in
J. S33010/14
Limine, which requested that prison phone
calls, which contained hearsay statements
from uncharged individuals, not be allowed to
be played for the jury?
3. Did the Trial Court err when it denied the
Appellant’s request for a limiting instruction on
the phone calls?
Appellant’s brief at 4.
We find no error with the trial court’s analysis. After a thorough
review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the
well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, it is our determination that there is
no merit to the questions raised on appeal. The trial court’s meticulous,
26-page opinion, filed on August 20, 2013, comprehensively discusses and
properly disposes of the questions presented. We will adopt it as our own
and affirm on that basis.1
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/25/2014
1
We would add to the trial court’s analysis on the hearsay issue by noting
that at no point does appellant identify to which statements he is objecting,
nor does he explain how he was prejudiced by them. Thus, we also find this
issue to be inadequately presented.
-2-
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM
Circulated 10/29/2014 02:48 PM