J-S49011-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
STEFFONE SPANN
Appellant No. 1314 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 18, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011532-2013
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 25, 2016
Appellant, Steffone Spann, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered December 18, 2014, by the Honorable Daniel D. McCaffery, Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We affirm.
We take the underlying facts and procedural history in this matter
from the trial court’s July 14, 2015 opinion.
On July 28, 2013, during the early morning hours, Mr.
Rodney Wroten, the complainant herein, was driving in the area
of the 5700 block of Baltimore Avenue in Philadelphia when his
van ran out of gas. (N.T.[,Bench Trial, 9/18/14 at] 7-12, 13). He
walked to a gas station located a block away at Baltimore
Avenue and 58th Street[,] purchased gas and returned to his
vehicle. (N.T. 13). While sitting in his van, Wroten was
approached by Appellant who asked him something to the effect
of, “Where the shit at?” (N.T. 13, 15). Wroten testified that on
the previous day, he was told that someone named “Steffone”
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S49011-16
who lived on Cecil Street, was looking for him because he
allegedly had taken something from “Steffone.” Wroten did not
understand Appellant’s question because he did not know
Appellant and had not taken anything from him. (N.T. 15-17).
When the conversation ended, Appellant walked away,
leading Wroten to believe that he was leaving. (N.T. 17, 18).
However, Appellant suddenly stopped in front of Wroten’s van
and fired three shots at Wroten’s head through the front
windshield. (N.T. 18-20). Each of the three shots struck Wroten,
who covered his head with his arm, in his left arm. Two of the
bullets exited his arm and struck him in his shoulder and back.
(N.T. 19-20). After firing the shots, Appellant fled. (N.T. 20-21).
Although he had been shot, Wroten exited his vehicle and
unsuccessfully tried to flag down a passing motorist. (N.T. 23-
24). He collapsed after walking about a block. (N.T. 24). The
police arrived shortly thereafter and transported him to a nearby
hospital for treatment. (N.T. 24-25).
The next morning Wroten gave police a statement about
the incident. During the police interview, Wroten was shown a
photo spread and identified Appellant as the person who shot
him the previous evening. (N.T. 28-30).
Ms. Sharqueise Wallace was sitting on the porch of her
residence when the incident occurred. Wallace observed Wroten
having trouble with his vehicle and a man walk up to him as
Wroten tried to restart the van. (N.T. 80-81). Wallace then
observed the two men engage in a brief conversation and when
it ended, the man who had walked up to the van began firing a
gun. (N.T. 81-82). Wallace ran into her house and called 911.
She then returned outside and approached the complainant who
had collapsed on the street. (N.T. 83). Wroten told Wallace his
name and stated that he did not know the name of the person
who had shot him. (N.T. 105). According to Wallace, the police
arrived shortly thereafter and drove Wroten away after putting
him in a police car. (N.T. 83-84). Wallace was not able to
identify the male who fired the shots because she did not see the
man’s face. (N.T. 86).
Appellant testified in his own defense and denied knowing
Wroten. (N.T. 155-156). He also denied having been the victim
of a theft and indicated that he was inside his home, which was
located in close proximity to the site of the incident herein, when
the incident occurred. (N.T. 159-160, 162).
-2-
J-S49011-16
Trial Court Opinion, 7/14/15 at 2-3 (footnotes omitted).
On September 18, 2014, following a waiver trial, Appellant
was found guilty of Attempted Murder, 18 Pa.C.S. § 901, graded
as a felony of the first degree, Aggravated Assault, graded as a
felony of the first degree, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702, Firearms Not to Be
Carried [W]ithout a License, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106, Discharge Of A
Firearm Into Occupied Structure, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2702.1, Carrying
a Firearm on a Public Street, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108, Possessing an
Instrument of Crime Generally, 18 Pa.C.S. § 907, Simple
Assault, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2701, and Recklessly Endangering
[A]nother Person[,] 18 Pa.C.S. § 2705. On December 18,
201[4], [the trial court sentenced Appellant to] eight to twenty
years’ incarceration.
Following the imposition of sentence, Appellant filed a
motion for reconsideration of sentence. Said motion was denied
on April 13, 2015. Appellant thereafter filed a notice of appeal to
the Superior Court and a court ordered Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement. …
Id. at 1-2.
Appellant raises two issues for our review.
1. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err and unfairly prejudice Steffone
Spann when the [c]ourt overruled [d]efense [c]ounsel’s
objection and allowed the complaining witness to testify as to
what others’ [sic] had told him?
2. Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err and unfairly prejudice Steffone
Spann when the [c]ourt overruled [d]efense [c]ounsel’s
objection and allowed the District Attorney to conduct re-
direct examination, which exceeded the scope of the cross-
examination of the complaining witness?
Appellant’s Brief at 5.
Preliminarily, we note that the trial court determined that Appellant’s
Rule 1925(b) statement was too vague to facilitate review of the issues
raised therein. Specifically, the court found that “Appellant waived review of
these claims since he fails to specifically cite to the testimony of record
-3-
J-S49011-16
pertaining to this claim in his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.” Trial Court
Opinion, 7/14/15 at 4. We agree.
“If a Rule 1925(b) statement is too vague, the trial judge may find
waiver and disregard any argument.” Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d
1, 2 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citation omitted).
When a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing,
that is not enough for meaningful review. When an appellant
fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the issues sought
to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its
preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues.
In other words, 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. (citations omitted).
Here, Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement did not include record
citations to the pertinent testimony he challenged on appeal. Consequently,
Appellant’s concise statement was not specific enough for the trial court to
identify and address the issues Appellant purported to raise. See Trial Court
Opinion, 7/14/15 at 4. As Appellant’s concise statement hampered effective
appellate review of his claims, the trial court correctly found the issues
raised therein waived.
Even if we were to address Appellant’s claims, we would not afford
relief. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that inadmissible evidence had
-4-
J-S49011-16
been admitted at trial and should have been excluded, 1 such error would
undoubtedly be harmless. There was no jury trial in this case. “[The] trial
court, acting as the finder of fact, is presumed to know the law, ignore
prejudicial statements, and disregard inadmissible evidence.”
Commonwealth v. Smith, 97 A.3d 782, 788 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation
omitted). Nothing in the record indicates the contrary. Accordingly,
Appellant’s issues would not merit relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/25/2016
____________________________________________
1
Our decision in no way reflects on the merits of Appellant’s underlying
claims and we could not examine Appellant’s claims even if we were inclined
to do so. The certified record does not contain a transcript of the non-jury
trial and there is no request for transcripts attached to Appellant’s notice of
appeal. It is long settled that “[w]hen the appellant ... fails to conform to
the requirements of [Pa.R.A.P.] 1911 [relating to transcript requests], any
claims that cannot be resolved in the absence of the necessary transcript or
transcripts must be deemed waived for the purpose of appellate review.”
Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 916 A.2d 632 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted).
-5-
Com. v. Spann, S.
Combined Opinion