J-S53009-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
ANTOINE JAMES MABLE,
Appellant No. 3211 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 23, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-CR-0000723-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OLSON, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 11, 2017
Appellant, Antoine James Mable, appeals from the judgment of
sentence of an aggregate term of 30-60 months’ incarceration, imposed
following his conviction for promoting prostitution, conspiracy to promote
prostitution, and transporting a prostitute. After careful review, we remand
for the trial court to file a responsive Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
The Commonwealth charged Appellant with Rape, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121;
conspiracy (promoting prostitution), 18 Pa.C.S. § 903; involuntary deviate
sexual intercourse, 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121; aggravated indecent assault, 18
Pa.C.S. § 3125; promoting prostitution (encouragement), 18 Pa.C.S. §
5902(b)(3); unlawful restraint, 18 Pa.C.S. § 2902; indecent assault, 18
Pa.C.S. § 3126; and promoting prostitution (transportation), 18 Pa.C.S. §
5902(b)(6). On March 9, 2016, a jury convicted Appellant of all the
J-S53009-17
prostitution-related offenses (conspiracy, encouraging prostitution, and
transporting a prostitute), but “was hopelessly deadlocked on the remaining
charges[,]” leading the trial court to declare a mistrial with respect to the
remaining counts. Post-Sentence Motion Opinion, 9/19/16, at 1. On May
23, 2016, the court sentenced Appellant to consecutive terms of 15-30
months’ incarceration for conspiracy and encouraging prostitution, and to a
concurrent term of 6-12 months’ incarceration for transporting a prostitute.
On June 2, 2016, Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, and a
hearing was held on July 13, 2016, to address the claims raised therein.
The motion was denied by an opinion and order dated September 19, 2016.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and a timely, court-ordered
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. However, the trial court neither issued a Rule
1925(a) opinion, nor a statement in lieu thereof. Moreover, our review of
the trial court’s September 19, 2016 opinion indicates that it did not
adequately address all of the issues which Appellant raised in his Rule
1925(b) statement and now presents in his brief, thereby hindering our
review of those claims.
Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court for the filing of a
Rule 1925(a) opinion within 45 days of the filing date of this Judgment
Order. In the interest of judicial economy, we specifically direct the court to
address the following claims as set forth in Appellant’s brief to this Court:
I. Whether the Commonwealth should have been precluded
from relying on expert testimony regarding gang affiliation,
any reference to gang affiliation and/or activity and
-2-
J-S53009-17
statements made by [Appellant] regarding said
affiliation[?] Further, testimony from a “gang expert” and
any mention of gang affiliation by any witness is irrelevant,
more prejudicial than probative, and inherently
inadmissible pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404(b).
II. Did the trial court err in denying [Appellant]’s omnibus
pretrial motion seeking, inter alia, to preclude the
conclusory term of “victim” when referencing the
complaining witness[?]
III. Whether Appellant[’]s convictions are contrary to the
weight and sufficiency of the evidence presented where the
Commonwealth’s complaining witness testified in an
inconsistent manner and there was insufficient evidence
presented that [Appellant] was involved in a conspiracy to
commit or engaged in any overt act to promote
prostitution[?][1]
Appellant’s Brief at 10.
Case remanded to the trial court for the filing of a Rule 1925(a)
opinion consistent with this Judgement Order within 45 days. Jurisdiction
retained.
____________________________________________
1 With regard to Appellant’s third claim, the trial court is directed to address
Appellant’s sufficiency issue in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. However, with
regard to Appellant’s weight-of-the-evidence claim, we ask the trial court to
first address whether Appellant adequately preserved that matter in his
post-sentence motion, before the court addresses its merit. See
Commonwealth v. O'Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 252 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(“Weight of the evidence claims must be raised via oral, written, or post-
sentence motions in the trial court for the issue to be preserved for
appeal.”); Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A).
-3-
J-S53009-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/11/2017
-4-