J-S40008-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ANGEL REYES :
:
Appellant : No. 3358 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0013835-2012,
CP-51-CR-0013836-2012
BEFORE: OTT, DUBOW, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY OTT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2017
While I agree with the Majority to affirm the judgment of sentence, I
write separately because I differ with the Majority’s conclusion that the
sufficiency and weight claims raised by the appellant, Angel Reyes, have
been waived. In my view, Reyes’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was
sufficient to preserve these claims, which were fully addressed by the trial
court, and I would conclude the trial court’s analysis is dispositive.1
____________________________________________
1
On March 17, 2016, the trial court issued an order for a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement. However, neither the certified record, the docket, nor
the copy of the concise statement attached to Reyes’s brief, indicate that the
concise statement was filed of record. Nevertheless, in its opinion, the trial
court indicates Reyes filed a concise statement on April 7, 2016. Neither
party takes issue with this statement. The trial court issued an opinion
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) on November 10, 2016.
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S40008-17
It is well-settled that when a trial court directs an appellant to file a
Rule 1925(b) statement, the statement must “concisely identify each ruling
or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to
identify all pertinent issues for the judge.” Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii). Indeed,
this Court has found waiver where an appellant’s concise statement is too
vague to permit review. Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa.
Super. 2015). Particularly, when an appellant challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence,
the [Rule] 1925(b) statement needs to specify the element or
elements upon which the evidence was insufficient. This Court can
then analyze the element or elements on appeal. [Where a Rule]
1925(b) statement [ ] does not specify the allegedly unproven
elements[,] ... the sufficiency issue is waived [on appeal].
Id., quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257 (Pa.
Super. 2008) (quotation omitted). The same is true for a challenge to the
weight of the evidence. See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231,
1248-1249 (Pa. Super. 2015). Nevertheless, when our appellate review is
not hindered by the defects in the concise statement, we have declined to
find waiver. See Commonwealth v. Laboy, 936 A.2d 1058 (Pa. 2007)
(stating court can review issue despite vague Rule 1925(b) statement,
where trial court readily apprehends appellant’s claim and addresses it in
substantial detail); Commonwealth v. Smith, 955 A.2d 391, 393 (Pa.
Super. 2008) (en banc) (finding issues not waived despite vague Rule
-2-
J-S40008-17
1925(b) statement when the trial court “filed an opinion which meaningfully
addressed the [appellant’s] arguments.”).
On appeal, Reyes frames his sufficiency and weight claims, as follows:
ii. Did the trial court err in finding [Reyes] guilty of the 3 counts
of aggravated assault, where there was not sufficient evidence
that [Reyes] intended to cause bodily [injury] or serious bodily
injury, or that any injury occurred. Did the trial court err in
finding [Reyes] guilty of possession with the intent to deliver
(PWID) where there was not sufficient evidence [Reyes]
possessed the controlled substances with the intent to sell a
controlled substance. Did the trial court err in finding [Reyes]
guilty of resisting arrest, where there was not sufficient evidence
that the arrest was lawful.
iii. Did the trial court err in finding [Reyes] guilty of aggravated
assault or resisting arrest as the verdict was against the weight
of the evidence.
Reyes’s Brief at 11.
In his Rule 1925(b) statement, Reyes claimed, inter alia, that “the Jury
err[ed] in finding appellant guilty of Aggravated Assault (F1), two counts of
Aggravated Assault (F2), Possession with the Intent to Deliver, and Resisting
Arrest where there was insufficient evidence that appellant was guilty of
each element of all of the crimes,” and that “the Jury err[ed] in finding
appellant guilty of A/A (F1), A/A (F2), A/A (F2), PWID, and R/A as the
verdict was against the weight of the evidence.” Reyes’s Concise Statement,
at 1. Reyes specified his sufficiency challenge was as to “each element of all
the crimes” and enumerated the crimes at issue. His weight claim also
identified the crimes at issue. Moreover, the trial court fully addressed both
-3-
J-S40008-17
claims in its opinion. See Trial Court Opinion, 11/10/2016, at 11-19.
Consequently, I believe we are able to meaningfully review the sufficiency
and weight issues presented in this appeal. See Laboy, supra; Smith,
supra. Furthermore, I would find the trial court has provided a sound
analysis, and I would rely on the trial court’s opinion in rejecting these
claims.
Therefore, I respectfully concur.
-4-