J. A12036/19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
v. :
:
CHERRIE R. NEICE, : No. 1474 WDA 2018
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 10, 2018,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County
Criminal Division at No. CP-02-SA-0001446-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 25, 2019
Cherrie R. Neice appeals pro se from the October 10, 2018 judgment
of sentence of a $100 fine imposed after she was found guilty of the summary
offense of disorderly conduct.1 After careful review, we affirm the judgment
of sentence.
The trial court summarized the relevant facts of this case as follows:
The incident occurred in the Upper Saint Clair public
municipal building that also housed the library.
Kathleen Paulison testified that on July 27, 2017, as
she was leaving the library with her 10 year old son,
[appellant] suddenly appeared and became
aggressive towards her son and screamed at him
“what the f[***], what the f[***] is wrong with this
kid. He needs to get the f[***] out of my way.
[Appellant] directed the f-word towards Ms. Paulison’s
son seven times and once towards her. Ms. Paulison
stated that she was conversing with her son in a calm,
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(3).
J. A12036/19
quiet manner before [appellant] aggressively
approached them. She did not know the reason for
[appellant’s] aggression.
Trial court opinion, 1/4/19 at 1-2 (citations to notes of testimony omitted).
A non-traffic citation, No. 1214295-5, was filed against appellant on
July 31, 2017, charging her with the aforementioned summary offense of
disorderly conduct. Following a magisterial hearing, appellant was found
guilty and ordered to pay a fine and costs totaling $460.50. Appellant filed a
timely summary appeal, and a de novo hearing was held before the
Honorable Thomas E. Flaherty of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny
County on October 10, 2018. Both Kathleen Paulison and Upper St. Clair
Police Officer Michael Lidenfelser testified at this proceeding. As noted, the
trial court found appellant guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced her to
pay a $100 fine that same day. Thereafter, appellant filed a timely notice of
appeal and a court-ordered concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b). The
trial court, in turn, filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on January 4, 2019.
Preliminarily, we recognize that appellant’s 61-page pro se brief does
not include a single citation to relevant legal authority, nor does it make any
mention of the specific elements of Section 5503(a)(3), the crime for which
she was found guilty. “Although this Court is willing to liberally construe
materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit
upon the appellant[.]” Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498
-2-
J. A12036/19
(Pa.Super. 2005) (citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing
to represent [her]self in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent,
assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Id.
As best we can discern from appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement and
appellate brief, appellant first contends that there was insufficient evidence to
sustain her summary conviction for disorderly conduct. For the following
reasons, we find that appellant has waived this claim.
Rule 1925(b) provides, inter alia, that “[i]ssues 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)(vii). In Commonwealth
v. Garland, 63 A.3d 339 (Pa.Super. 2013), a panel of this court held the
appellant had waived his sufficiency of the evidence claim where his
Rule 1925(b) statement simply averred the evidence was legally insufficient
to support his convictions. Id. at 344. It is well settled that,
[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.
Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, our review of the record establishes that appellant has waived her
sufficiency claim by failing to identify in her Rule 1925(b) statement the
specific elements of disorderly conduct that the Commonwealth failed to
prove. Rather, appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement avers, “Judge
-3-
J. A12036/19
Thomas Flaherty erred in finding that Officer Michael Lindenfelser and
Kathleen Paulison met their burden of proof along with the fact that there was
not sufficient evidence presented at the Summary appeal hearing.”
(Rule 1925(b) statement, 12/6/18, at unnumbered page 1, ¶ 2.) Appellant’s
“Statement of Questions Involved” also fails to specify the elements of
disorderly conduct that she is challenging on appeal. (See appellant’s brief at
5-6.) Rather, appellant simply argues that the testimony presented by the
Commonwealth’s witnesses was inconsistent and contradictory and challenges
the trial court’s credibility determinations:
Judge Thomas Flaherty was negligent and erred in
finding that Officer [] Lindenfelser and
Kathleen Paulison met the required weight of
evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
when there was insufficient evidence presented at the
summary appeal hearing.
....
Kathleen Paulison, [w]itness, under oath, repeatedly
made fabricated subjective and opinionated
statements along with contradictory testimony. She
was biased. This is evidenced in the court transcript.
This defines her as a witness that is not credible.
Officer [] Lindenfelser, [w]itness, under oath,
demonstrated police misconduct with his
contradictory testimonial version of events. This is
evidenced in the court transcript.
Appellant’s brief at 5-6 (extraneous capitalization omitted); see also
Rule 1925(b) statement, 12/6/18, at unnumbered page 1, ¶¶ 4-5.
-4-
J. A12036/19
Appellant’s claim as presented does not properly implicate the
sufficiency of the evidence. An allegation that a witness’s testimony is
inconsistent or unreliable goes to the weight of the evidence, and appellant’s
dissatisfaction with the trial court’s credibility determinations does not provide
her with a basis for relief on sufficiency review. Here, as noted, both
Kathleen Paulison and Officer Lidenfelser testified on behalf of the
Commonwealth at the October 10, 2018 de novo hearing. The Honorable
Thomas E. Flaherty, sitting as fact-finder, found testimony of the
Commonwealth’s witnesses credible and elected not to believe appellant’s
version of the events. (See trial court opinion, 1/4/19 at unnumbered 2.) We
are precluded from reweighing the evidence and substituting our judgment for
that of the fact-finder. Commonwealth v. Clay, 64 A.3d 1049, 1055 (Pa.
2013).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s October 10, 2018
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/25/2019
-5-