Com. v. Cintron, F.

J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
FRANCISCO CINTRON, :
:
Appellant : No. 1503 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 18, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000249-2015

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
FRANCISCO CINTRON, :
:
Appellant : No. 1506 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 18, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0003117-2014

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED JUNE 12, 2017

Appellant Francisco Cintron appeals from the judgment of sentence

entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County after Appellant was

convicted of Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession with Intent to Manufacture

____________________________________________

*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

or Deliver (two counts), Conspiracy (two counts), Criminal Use of a

Communication Facility, and Drug Delivery Resulting in Death. 1,2 As

Appellant failed to submit an appropriate concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), all his arguments

are waived on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence.

The trial court aptly summarized the factual background as follows:

On March 1, 2014, Appellant, Francisco “Frank” Cintron
sold Cindy Brower twenty-eight bags of heroin stamped “Bad
News” for $160. Ms. Brower had bought heroin from Appellant
more than sixty times prior to this occasion. Immediately after
Appellant sold Ms. Brower heroin, Ms. Brower met Ryan Nocera
to sell three bags of heroin per Mr. Nocera’s request. In
exchange for $30, Ms. Brower gave a cigarette pack to her
boyfriend, Daron Martin, who then passed it to Mr. Nocera. The
cigarette pack contained three bags of heroin.

Later that evening on March 1, 2014, 19-year-old Ryan
Nocera’s father found him on the bathroom floor, not breathing,
with no pulse. Upon arrival of first responders, Mr. Nocera
received CPR (continued from when the father found him
unresponsive), and injections of Naloxone, an opioid antagonist.
Medical professionals reestablished a normal heartbeat but Mr.
Nocera’s brain was irreparably damaged from a lack of oxygen
effectively rendering him brain dead. Fentanyl, a potent
analgesic, was present in Mr. Nocera’s blood.

____________________________________________

1
35 Pa.C.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903, 18 Pa.C.S. § 7512(a), and
18 Pa.C.S. § 2506(a), respectively.
2
Appellant was charged on two separate dockets for the relevant crimes.
The trial court consolidated the two dockets for Appellant’s waiver trial.
While Appellant filed notices of appeal at both dockets, he raises identical
challenges in each appeal.

-2-
J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

After Mr. Nocera was transported to Doylestown Hospital,
Officer Timothy Johnson of the Buckingham Township Police
Department entered the bathroom where he found an iPhone, a
pack of Newport cigarettes, a syringe, an orange needle top for
the syringe, an unopened blue wax baggie, a spoon with visible
of residue [sic], and a tie-off strap. Inside the Newport pack two
blue wax baggies stamped “Bad News” were discovered with
each baggie ripped open. The residue on the spoon and in the
two blue wax baggies stamped “Bad News” all tested positive for
fentanyl.

On March 2, 2014, Ms. Brower was notified Mr. Nocera was
in a coma. Ms. Brower called the Appellant to inform him that
her friend Mr. Nocera was in a coma and she received what was
characterized as a “callous response.” Just after midnight on the
morning of March 3, 2014, Ms. Brower texted Appellant telling
him she heard Mr. Nocera died. Appellant responded to Ms.
Brower’s text within one minute stating, “Don’t repeat that to
anybody.”

Later on March 3, 2014, Ms. Brower visited the Abington
Police Department to address a prior arrest for possession of
heroin and registered as a confidential informant. After Ms.
Brower left the police station, Appellant contacted her seeking
transportation to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to resupply on
heroin. Ms. Brower informed the Abington Police Department
about the scheduled trip to resupply and they established a
surveillance team to track Ms. Brower and Appellant into
Philadelphia. On the drive down, Appellant agreed to give Ms.
Brower heroin in exchange for the ride into Philadelphia.
Appellant and Ms. Brower also discussed the death of Mr. Nocera
– Appellant said he intended to change the name on the bags
and dull the contents as a result of Mr. Nocera’s death. Ms.
Brower and Appellant stopped on 5th Street in Philadelphia where
the Appellant exited the vehicle to “pick up the stuff.” Appellant
returned asking Ms. Brower to open the trunk, he then entered
the vehicle and they drove away to pick up more drugs (this
time for Appellant’s personal consumption). Some point after
Appellant picked up the heroin and before Appellant purchased
drugs for personal consumption, Ms. Brower sent a
communication to the surveillance team that they collected the
heroin. On the way back into Bucks County, police stopped the
vehicle and arrested Ms. Brower and Appellant. Appellant
identified himself as Jason Rivera to the arresting officer.

-3-
J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

After the arrest, Det. Timothy Carroll of the Bucks County
District Attorney’s Office interviewed the Appellant, [who was]
still using the name Jason Rivera, after adequately informing
Appellant of his Miranda rights, of which Appellant waived.
Appellant told Det. Carroll that he traveled into Philadelphia to
buy “three-and-a-half racks of heroin” for $800 from a man
named “Wilson.” Appellant claimed he only sold heroin to make
money on the side – his full time job was in landscaping.
Appellant gave consent to search the white Dodge and his
cellular telephone.

Detective Scott Selisker of the Warminster Township Police
Department inspected Ms. Brower’s impounded white Dodge that
police observed her driving with Appellant on March 3rd up until
their arrest. Det. Selisker discovered 476 bags, holding 10.76
grams of heroin inside the truck of the impounded white Dodge.
The bags were packaged inside three packages wrapped in plain
paper with tape and held together by a rubber band. The blue
wax paper bags were stamped “Playboy,” enclosed in bundles of
plastic bags, and each blue wax paper bag contained a white
powdered substance.

On March 4, 2014, Dr. Ian Hood performed an autopsy on
Mr. Nocera. Dr. Hood noticed “nontherapeutic needle” puncture
marks similar to those of a diabetic type 30-gauge needle, not
the type used in the hospital or in resuscitation. Upon arriving
at the Doylestown Hospital three days earlier, Mr. Nocera’s blood
contained fentanyl at twenty-four nanograms per milliliter – six
times the lethal amount even for an opiate tolerant individual.
Dr. Hood determined the cause of death as fentanyl toxicity.

Two days after the initial interview of Appellant, on March
5, 2014, Detective Carroll conducted a second interview.
Appellant issued a written statement revealing he knew of Mr.
Nocera’s overdose and of another’s overdose from the “Bad
News” heroin he was distributing. Appellant’s reaction to the
overdoses was to call Wilson, the man he purchased “Bad News”
from to inform him of the overdoses and to get more heroin.
After driving down to Philadelphia with Ms. Brower, the same
manufacturer of “Bad News” heroin sold Appellant a less potent
batch of heroin with the stamp “Playboy.” Appellant also
admitted to placing a call to Wilson on the jailhouse phone to
notify him of the police investigation.

-4-
J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

Trial Court Opinion (T.C.O.), 6/21/16, at 2-6 (citations and quotation marks

omitted).

After a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of the aforementioned

charges. On December 18, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an

aggregate sentence of twelve and one half to twenty-five years’

imprisonment to be followed by five years’ probation. On December 28,

2015, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of his sentence, which was

denied by operation of law on April 28, 2016. This timely appeal followed.

After the trial court directed Appellant to file a concise statement of matters

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), Appellant filed a

statement raising forty-three issues for appellate review.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review on appeal:

I. Whether the Commonwealth failed to meet their burdens
of proof.

II. Whether the sentence imposed was improper or
excessively punitive or purely based on emotion.

III. Whether post trial motions should not have been denied by
operation of law when the trial and sentencing transcripts
were not completed precluding briefing and oral argument.

IV. Whether the Appellant’s motion to suppress should have
been granted.

V. Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict
of guilty.

VI. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence where the testimony was non-existent and
insufficient to prove any charge.

-5-
J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

Appellant’s Brief, at 10 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

Before we reach the merits of Appellant’s arguments, we note that the

trial court found all of Appellant’s arguments were waived by Appellant’s

failure to file a concise and coherent 1925(b) statement to allow the trial

court to understand the issues being raised on appeal. The trial court

provided the following:

The Superior Court made clear that “Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) is not
satisfied by simply filing any statement. Rather, the statement
must be ‘concise’ and coherent as to permit the trial court to
understand the specific issues being raised on appeal.” [Tucker
v. R.M. Tours, 939 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa.Super. 2007).] … When
an appellant raises an “outrageous” number of issues in a
1925(b) statement, an appellant “ha[s] deliberately
circumvented the meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and
ha[s] thereby effectively precluded appellate review of the issues
they now seek to raise.” Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401
(Pa.Super. 2004).
***
Appellant’s Statement of Errors covers six pages and features
forty-three (43) separately numbered statements of error, many
of which are redundant, vague, confusing, or a combination of
those features. This Court finds that such a statement can
hardly be considered coherent, nor concise, and the
“voluminous” nature of the filing impedes the Court’s ability to
provide a comprehensive analysis of the relevant issues.

Evidence of the voluminous and incoherent nature of this appeal
is in claim thirteen (13) asserting Appellant should receive relief
because “Cindy Brower’s other supplier should have been
charged with the same crime as the appellant.” (emphasis
removed). Such an erroneous claim exemplifies the logical
disconnect repeatedly found in Appellant’s concise statement of
errors. Stating an opinion concerning charges to a third party
does not rise to an appealable issue, let alone a legal one. The
logic gap extends further upon seeking a remedy from the court
based on whether or not the Commonwealth decides to
prosecute an individual unrelated to Appellant’s culpability.

-6-
J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

T.C.O., at 12-13 (citations and quotation marks omitted).

We agree that Appellant did not sufficiently identify the issues he

wished to raise on appeal in his 1925(b) statement. This Court has provided

that “[t]he purpose of Rule 1925 is to narrow the focus of an appeal to those

issues which the appellant wishes to raise on appeal.” Mahonski v. Engel,

145 A.3d 175, 180 (Pa.Super. 2016). Rule 1925 specifically states the

following:

(i) The Statement shall set forth only those rulings or errors that
the appellant intends to challenge.

(ii) The Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or error
that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to
identify all pertinent issues for the judge....
***
(iv) The Statement should not be redundant or provide lengthy
explanations as to any error. Where non-redundant, non-
frivolous issues are set forth in an appropriately concise manner,
the number of issues raised will not alone be grounds for finding
waiver.
***
(vii) Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in
accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are
waived.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i), (ii), (iv), and (vii).

This Court has interpreted Rule 1925(b) to require a statement that is

“sufficiently concise and coherent such that the trial court judge may be able

to identify the issues to be raised on appeal, and the circumstances must not

suggest the existence of bad faith.” Commonwealth v. Jiricko, 947 A.2d

206, 210 (Pa.Super. 2008). Moreover,

-7-
J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

Rule 1925 is intended to aid trial judges in identifying and
focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on
appeal. Rule 1925 is thus a crucial component of the appellate
process. 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.

Commonwealth v. Ray, 134 A.3d 1109, 1114 (Pa.Super. 2016) (quotation

omitted).

Thus, this Court has concluded that the submission of a Rule 1925(b)

Statement which is so voluminous, vague, incoherent, or confusing as to

prevent the trial court from engaging in a meaningful analysis results in

waiver of all claims presented. See Mahonski, supra (finding waiver of all

claims where Statement was overly vague, redundant, and contained

multiple sub-issues); Ray, supra (finding waiver of all claims where the

appellant failed to identify his claims in an adequate and concise manner).

In this case, we agree with the trial court’s characterization of

Appellant’s “concise statement” containing forty-three issues as “redundant,

vague, confusing, or a combination of those features.” Although Appellant

was convicted of six separate charges, neither his concise statement or his

questions presented statement of his appellate brief specifically identifies

which conviction he wishes to challenge; instead, he vaguely raises

sufficiency and weight claims and asserts that the Commonwealth did not

meet unspecified burdens. In the same manner, while he argues that the

trial court erred in denying his suppression motion, he does not set forth the

-8-
J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

specific grounds of error. Moreover, many of Appellant’s claims are

incoherent and incredibly vague, such as Appellant’s assertion that the “trial

court’s rulings on objections were clearly erroneous and/or constituted

abuses of discretion.” 1925(b) statement, at 1.

Therefore, as Appellant failed to adequately identify in a concise

manner the issues he sought to pursue on appeal, Appellant has waived all

the arguments he presented for appellate review. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of sentence.

Affirmed.

Solano, J. Concurs in the Result.

Lazarus, J. files a Concurring/Dissenting Statement.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/12/2017

-9-
J-S29036-17, J-S29037-17

- 10 -