J-S67013-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANGEL LUIS SOLER :
:
Appellant : No. 1156 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 2, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0002999-2017
BEFORE: OTT, J., NICHOLS, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MARCH 26, 2019
Angel Luis Soler appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed March
2, 2018, in the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. On October 13, 2017,
a jury convicted Soler of terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another
person (“REAP”), and disorderly conduct,1 and the court found Soler guilty of
the companion summary offense of criminal mischief.2 The court
subsequently sentenced Soler to a term of one-year probation. On appeal,
Soler challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.
For the reasons below, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
____________________________________________
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 2706(a)(1), 2705, and 5503(a)(1), respectively.
2 See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3304(a)(1).
J-S67013-18
The trial court set forth the facts as follows:
The charges in the instant case arose out of an incident that
occurred during the evening hours of December 22, 2016 on Brook
Street in Bristol Borough, Bucks County, between [Soler] and his
neighbor, Harry Scancella.1 On that date, Mr. Scancella was on
the porch of his home with his sons and nephews, ages six, seven,
eight and ten. His neighbor, Amy Sartoris, whose residence is
attached to Mr. Scancella’s residence, was home and was at
various times on her porch. Mr. Scancella’s mother was sitting on
a porch a few doors down. [Soler] and his girlfriend, were on their
porch, directly across the street, approximately twenty feet from
Mr. Scancella, Ms. Sartoris and the children.
_________________________
1At the time of trial, Mr. Scancella was thirty-five years old.
[Soler] was thirty-four years old.
_________________________
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,
the evidence introduced at trial established that the altercation
began when [Soler]’s girlfriend, who had been involved in an
ongoing dispute with Mr. Scancella’s sister and mother,2 began
yelling and cursing, calling Mr. Scancella’s family members
names. At that point, a verbal argument ensued between
[Soler]’s girlfriend and others on the street. In response to her
use of profanity, Mr. Scancella yelled across the street to the
[Soler]’s girlfriend stating, “Yo, the kids are on the porch.” The
focus of the argument then shifted to Mr. Scancella who then
began to argue with [Soler] and his girlfriend. During this heated
exchange, [Soler] attempted to goad Mr. Scancella into a physical
altercation, calling for him to “come over here.” [Soler] told Mr.
Scancella that he was going to blow up Mr. Scancella’s house.
After further arguing back and forth, [Soler] grabbed his
girlfriend’s phone and called across to Mr. Scancella, “I am going
to call my boys from North Philly and we are going to shoot up
your house.” [Soler] then walked off his porch and made a
telephone call. As Mr. Scancella tried to get the children off his
porch and into his home, [Soler]’s girlfriend continued to yell at
him. [Soler] then threw a full can of soda in the direction of where
Mr. Scancella, his nephew and Ms. Sartoris were standing. Mr.
Scancella described the speed and path of the can, stating that it
-2-
J-S67013-18
came “flying” across, right past him, missing him by two feet and
missing his nephew’s head by an inch, before it struck a window
sill, cracked the window screen and “exploded.” Mr. Scancella got
his nephew into the house and closed [the] door. Fearing for the
safety of himself and his family, Mr. Scancella called the police.
_________________________
Mr. Scancella was not involved in that dispute.
2
_________________________
Ms. Sartoris was called as a Commonwealth witness and
confirmed that [Soler] threatened to get his “boys from North
Philly” to shoot up Mr. Scancella’s house. She also confirmed that
he then walked off the porch to make a cellphone call and that he
“hurled” the soda can across the street, striking the window on
Mr. Scancella’s porch. She testified that she was only one or two
feet away from where the can struck.
Trial Court Opinion, 7/17/2018, at 2-3 (record citations omitted).
Soler was charged and convicted of the above-mentioned crimes. On
March 2, 2018, the court sentenced him to a term of one-year probation for
the disorderly conduct conviction. No further penalty was imposed with
respect to the remaining claims. Soler did not file any post-sentence motions,
but did file this appeal.3
He raises the following argument:
Was the evidence produced at trial sufficient to convict [Soler] of
the charges of terroristic threats, recklessly endangering another
person, and disorderly conduct, as [Soler] did not possess the
mens rea sufficient to convict for terroristic threats, did not
____________________________________________
3 Subsequently, trial counsel was permitted to withdraw and the court
appointed new counsel. On June 25, 2018, the trial court ordered Soler to file
a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). Soler filed a concise statement on July 9, 2018. The trial court
issued an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on July 17, 2018.
-3-
J-S67013-18
commit an act which placed the victim in danger of death or
serious bodily injury sufficient to convict for REAP, and did not
cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience so as to merit a
misdemeanor three conviction for disorderly conduct?
Soler’s Brief at v (some capitalization removed).
Prior to addressing the substantive claims, we must determine whether
Soler’s argument has been properly preserved for appellate review. As a panel
of this Court has previously explained, “[i]n order to preserve a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925(b)
statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the
appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient.” Commonwealth v.
Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231, 1248 (Pa. Super. 2015). Moreover, “[s]uch
specificity is of particular importance in cases where, as here, the [a]ppellant
was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous elements
that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation
omitted).
We find Freeman dispositive. There, the appellant’s concise statement
alleged that “the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction of
the crimes charged.” Freeman, 128 A.3d at 1247-1248. The panel
determined the appellant’s statement did “not specify which element or
elements of the relevant crimes, or even which crimes, the Commonwealth
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt” and such an “assertion is far too
-4-
J-S67013-18
vague to warrant meaningful appellate review.” Freeman, 128 A.3d at 1248.4
Therefore, the panel concluded the appellant’s sufficiency challenge was
waived.
Turning to the present matter, in his concise statement, Soler simply
stated:
1. The evidence produced at trial was insufficient to convict
[Soler] of the charges of Terroristic Threats, Recklessly
Endangering Another Person, Disorderly Conduct and Criminal
Mischief.
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b), 7/9/2018. Each crime that Soler refers to contains multiple elements
and he failed to “state with specificity the element or elements upon which
[he] alleges that the evidence was insufficient.” Freeman, 128 A.3d at 1248.
Accordingly, Soler waived his sufficiency argument for lack of specificity in the
concise statement.5
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
____________________________________________
4 See also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) and (vii).
5 Assuming arguendo that Soler had properly preserved his sufficiency
challenge, we would find that he was not entitled to any relief based on the
trial court’s well-reasoned July 17, 2018, opinion. See Trial Court Opinion,
7/17/2018, at 3-6.
-5-
J-S67013-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/26/19
-6-