J-S50022-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ELIJAH BUMPESS
Appellant No. 2051 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 20, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0003179-2012
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MUNDY, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2015
Appellant, Elijah Bumpess, appeals from the June 20, 2013 aggregate
judgment of sentence of five to fifteen years’ imprisonment, plus five years’
probation, imposed following a conviction by jury of robbery, criminal
conspiracy, firearms not to be carried without a license, carrying firearms on
public streets or public property in Philadelphia, possessing instruments of
crime, and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. 1 After
careful review, we affirm.
The trial court has set forth the relevant factual background of this
case as follows.
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3701, 903, 6106, 6108, 907, and 35 P.S. § 780-
113(a)(30), respectively.
J-S50022-15
The complainant, Mr. Randy Nevrotski,
testified that on the evening of October 21, 2011 he
was employed by Kev’s Auto Salvage as a tow truck
operator. At approximately 7:00 p.m., he received a
phone call from a blocked phone number asking him
to come “to pick up a junk car,” directing him to
vicinity of 67th Street and Upland Avenue in the City
of Philadelphia. After obtaining a contact number
from the caller, he drove to the location, arriving at
approximately 8:00 - 9:00 p.m. He described the
lighting conditions on his arrival as being dark[,] but
sufficiently lit by street lights so that he could see.
Mr. Nevrotski testified that, on arriving, he
dialed the contact number and told the customer
that he had arrived to buy the car. Shortly,
thereafter, a male, later identified as Mr. Williams,
exited the corner premises, 6020 67th Street, and
approached him. After a brief discussion, Mr.
Nevrotski asked him for the appropriate
documentation before completing the transaction.
As Mr. Williams appeared to be looking for the
paperwork, a second man, approached from the
front of the truck pointing a shiny silver hand gun at
Mr. Nevrotski’s chest and stomach area. Both men
demanded he give them his money. Mr. Williams
then searched Mr. Nevrotski’s pockets removing his
driver’s license, business credit card, medical I.D[.]
card, cash and miscellaneous receipts. Mr. Nevrotski
was then told to get back in his truck.
After getting back in his truck he observed Mr.
Williams running up 67th Street and gave chase. He
testified that Mr. Williams turned right at the corner
and then right again into the alleyway behind the
houses fronting 67th Street. On entering the alley,
Mr. Nevrotski found his path blocked by parked cars,
and, on seeing a police car at the other end, he
backed out of the alley returning to his original
starting point, flagging down the police car. After
relating these events to the officers[,] he observed
Mr. Williams and the second man run into the house
through the front door and alerted the officers of
this.
-2-
J-S50022-15
Philadelphia Police Officer Joy Gallen-Ruiz
testified that on the evening of October 21, 2011, at
approximately 9:15 p.m., she was on routine patrol
with her partner when she was stopped by Mr.
Nevrotski who reported that he had been robbed by
two black males who had run into the premises 2020
67th Street. On receiving this information she
immediately called for backup. Additional police
officers arrived a short time later and were admitted
to the premises, while she remained outside. She
then observed Philadelphia Police Officer Ragsdale
bring [Appellant] and Mr. Williams out of the house
and sit them down on the front steps. Officer
Gallen-Ruiz then entered the premises and
proceeded to the middle bedroom in the basement
where she recovered, from on top of the bed in the
room, the items taken from Mr. Nevrotski, including
his company credit card, his medical card and his
driver’s license.
Philadelphia Police Officer Troy Ragsdale
testified that he was working alone in plainclothes
when he proceeded to 2020 67th Street on receiving
a report of the robbery at that location. On being
given permission to enter the premises, he
proceeded directly to the basement where he
encountered [Appellant] and Mr. Williams in the
middle bedroom. He testified that [Appellant] was
sitting on the bed and Mr. Williams was attempting
to leave the room. After ordering the two men to go
upstairs, he observed, on top of the mattress, Mr.
Nevrotski’s drivers license and company credit card
in addition to a black bandana and puffy black coat.
Philadelphia Police Detective Mary Kuchinsky
testified that on October 21, 2011, at approximately
10:00 p.m., she was assigned to investigate the
robbery at 2020 67th Street. After interviewing the
responding officers and Mr. Nevrotski, she obtained a
search warrant for the premises. On executing the
warrant she recovered, from the middle bedroom in
the basement, a “Huggies container” containing
several clear plastic bags of a green weedy
-3-
J-S50022-15
substance, which tested positive for Marijuana. She
also recovered from this container “new and unused
packaging commonly used to package narcotics and
a small scale” as well as [Appellant]’s social security
card and mail addressed to him at that address. In
addition to these items, she also recovered a black
and white bandana next to the “Huggies container.”
Detective Kuchinsky also testified that she ….
recovered from the premises a black and silver .40
caliber handgun and a black .45 caliber
semiautomatic handgun. She also testified that
these handguns were properly registered to another
occupant of the premises. At the conclusion of the
Commonwealth’s case in chief, it was stipulated by
and between the parties that both firearms were
operable and that on October 21, 2011, [Appellant]
was not licensed to carry a firearm in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or in the City and
County of Philadelphia.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/11/14, at 3-6.
Appellant was arrested on October 22, 2011. Thereafter, on January
3, 2013, a two-day jury trial commenced, at the conclusion of which the jury
found Appellant guilty of the aforementioned crimes. On June 20, 2013, the
trial court sentenced Appellant to five to fifteen years’ imprisonment,
followed by five years’ probation. On July 18, 2013, Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal. On July 22, 2013, the trial court ordered Appellant to file,
within 21 days, a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). On August
8, 2013, Appellant timely complied, stating (1) the “verdict was against the
weight of the evidence[,]” and (2) “[t]he evidence adduced at trial was
insufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty.” Appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
-4-
J-S50022-15
Statement, 8/8/13. On March 11, 2014, the trial court filed its Rule 1925(a)
opinion.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review.
A. Did the trial court err when it found that there
was sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a
reasonable doubt, the criminal offenses of robbery,
criminal conspiracy, firearms not to be carried
without a license, carrying firearms on public streets
or public property in Philadelphia and possessing
instruments of crime?
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
Prior to addressing the merits of Appellant’s claim, we must determine
whether Appellant has preserved his issue for appellate review. By its text,
Rule 1925(b) requires that concise statements “identify each ruling or error
that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all
pertinent issues for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii); see also
Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating
“[w]hen a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is
not enough for meaningful review[]”), appeal denied, 919 A.2d 956 (Pa.
2007). Any issues not raised in accordance with Rule 1925(b)(4) will be
deemed waived. Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Our Supreme Court has made
clear that Rule 1925(b) is a bright-line rule. Commonwealth v. Hill, 16
A.3d 484, 494 (Pa. 2011). Additionally, with regard to claims pertaining to
the sufficiency of the Commonwealth’s evidence, we have stated as follows.
In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
-5-
J-S50022-15
statement must state with specificity the element or
elements upon which the appellant alleges that the
evidence was insufficient. 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.
Commonwealth v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339, 344 (Pa. Super. 2013) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis added); accord
Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1256 (Pa. Super. 2008).
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement baldy asserts, “[t]he evidence
adduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty.” Appellant’s
Rule 1925(b) Statement, 8/8/13. In said statement, Appellant fails to
specify which elements of which crimes he is challenging. Accordingly, we
agree with the trial court that Appellant’s issue is waived for failure to
sufficiently raise it in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Trial Court Opinion,
3/11/14, at 6-8 (finding waiver on the basis that Appellant’s statement was
“vague on its face” as Appellant “was convicted of six serious offenses
emanating from both robbing Mr. Nevrotski at gun point and possession of
illegal drugs[]”); Garland, supra; Williams, supra.
-6-
J-S50022-15
Therefore, we conclude that Appellant has waived his only issue on
appeal.2 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s June 20, 2013 judgment of
sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/18/2015
____________________________________________
2
If we were to reach the merits of Appellant’s sufficiency issue, we would
conclude the trial court has extensively and accurately addressed Appellant’s
issue in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. The trial court’s opinion fully addresses
each of the five charges, and Appellant’s alternative argument raised in his
appellate brief regarding his identity pertaining to each of the crimes. See
generally Trial Court Opinion, 3/11/14, at 8-13. Accordingly, if we were to
reach the merits of Appellant’s claim, we would affirm on the basis of the
March 11, 2014 opinion of the Honorable Charles J. Cunningham, III.
-7-