J-S44014-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RAHEIM RIGGINS,
Appellant No. 37 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered November 6, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-51-CR-0011009-2013
CP-51-CR-0012347-2013
CP-51-CR-0012349-2013
CP-51-CR-0012351-2013
CP-51-CR-0012352-2013
CP-51-CR-0013662-2013
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED AUGUST 25, 2017
Appellant, Raheim Riggins, appeals from the judgment of sentence of
an aggregate term of 36 to 72 years’ incarceration, imposed after he was
convicted of numerous offenses including, inter alia, rape, aggravated
assault, unlawful restraint, indecent assault, burglary, criminal conspiracy,
and carrying a firearm without a license. After careful review, we are
constrained to remand for further action by the trial court.
For purposes of our present disposition, we need only note that
Appellant was charged in six separate cases, which were all consolidated for
trial. Following his conviction and sentencing, he filed timely post-sentence
J-S44014-17
motions in each case. Those motions were ultimately denied, and Appellant
filed timely notices of appeal in each case. The trial court then directed
Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained
of on appeal. Problematically, Appellant chose to file six different (albeit
similar) Rule 1925(b) statements in each of his cases. Apparently, the trial
court did not realize that Appellant was filing multiple concise statements.
While the court ultimately drafted a well-reasoned and detailed opinion, it
inadvertently erred by concluding that Appellant had waived his sufficiency
of the evidence claim(s) based on the single Rule 1925(b) statement the
court assessed. More significantly, the court also did not address two
weight-of-the-evidence issues raised by Appellant in the cases pertaining to
victims Joanne Hawkins and Earle Wilson.1
Consequently, we are constrained to remand this case for the trial
court to draft a new opinion. We direct the court to address the following
five issues raised by Appellant on appeal (which we determine were
preserved through our examination of Appellant’s six post-sentence motions
and six Rule 1925(b) statements):
1. Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict of
guilty [in the cases involving Ms. Hawkins, Mr. Wilson, and
J.B.K.,] where the victims were unable to identify [Appellant] as
the person who committed the crimes[?]
____________________________________________
1
To avoid such confusion in the future, Appellant’s counsel should
consolidate all claims in one post-sentence motion and one Rule 1925(b)
statement.
-2-
J-S44014-17
2. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the credible
evidence where[,] although a statement was read into the record
from Appellant regarding his supposed involvement in the
robbery of Earle Wilson, there was no other valid independent or
corroborating evidence[?]
3. Whether the verdict was against the weight of the credible
evidence in that[,] although a statement was read into the
record from [Appellant] regarding his supposed involvement in
the robbery and assault of J.B.K., there was no DNA analysis, no
identification or other independent or corroborating evidence[?]
4. The verdict was against the weight of the credible evidence in
that[,] although a statement was read into the record from
[Appellant] regarding his supposed involvement in the sexual
assault of Ms. Hawkins, the lack of identification along with the
DNA evidence at trial showed otherwise.
5. Whether the trial court imposed an illegal, excessively
punitive sentence where [the] aggregate sentence (36 to 72
years) amounts to a life sentence for [] Appellant and Appellant
received an illegal sentence on the indecent assault[?] The
[c]ourt failed to consider the guidelines in fashioning an
appropriate sentence and failed to provide adequate reasons on
the record.
Appellant’s Brief at 7-8.
We direct that the trial court file its new opinion with this Court within
45 days of the filing date of this judgment order.
Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/25/2017
-3-