Com. v. Burik, S. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J-A25007-15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,             : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :      PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellee               :
    :
    v.                           :
    :
    SVYATOSLAV BURIK,                         :
    :
    Appellant              : No. 228 EDA 2015
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 16, 2014,
    Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County,
    Criminal Division at No. CP-09-CR-0003246-2014
    BEFORE: DONOHUE, MUNDY and FITZGERALD*, JJ.
    MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.:                       FILED December 18, 2015
    Svyatoslav Burik (“Burik”) appeals from the judgment of sentence
    entered following his convictions of two counts each of stalking, harassment,
    terroristic threats, and threat to use weapons of mass destruction (“weapons
    of mass destruction”).1 Following our review, we affirm.
    The trial court summarized the facts underlying
    Burik’s convictions as follows: This case arises from
    Defendant's     continued     and   repeated   threats
    communicated verbally and posted publicly on the
    Internet directed at Joshua Aybinder and employees
    of a local hospital, St. Mary Medical Center.
    St. Mary Medical Center is situated in Langhorne,
    Bucks County, PA and has between twenty -six
    hundred (2,600) and three thousand employees
    (3,000). Trial N.T., 41, 57.1 It is equipped with a
    24/7 trauma emergency department. Id.
    1
    18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2709.1(a)(2), 2709(a)(4), 2706(a)(1), 2715(a)(4).
    *Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    J-A25007-15
    In 2009, Joshua Aybinder was employed as an
    emergency medical technician (“EMT”) at St. Mary
    Medical Center. Trial N.T., 41. On February 16, 2009,
    while he was working in the emergency department
    of the hospital, he came into contact with Defendant.
    Id. at 42. He was previously acquainted with [Burik]
    because the two were in the same graduating high
    school class. Id. Mr. Aybinder was assigned to assist
    with the safety of the staff members during an
    ordered catheterization procedure. Id. at 43-44. As
    he    was    assisting,   [Burik’s]   demeanor     was
    threatening,     although   Mr.     Aybinder  testified
    truthfully that there were words spoken but he could
    not specifically recall which words were being
    directed at him. Id. at 44-45. Mr. Aybinder did not
    come into contact with Defendant for the next year.
    Id. at 46. However, in 2010 Mr. Aybinder received a
    Facebook message from [Burik] that was threatening
    in nature. Id. at 45 -46. Again, Mr. Aybinder could
    not specifically recall the exact words that were
    uttered, but could only remember their alarming
    effect. Id. Again, Mr. Aybinder did not receive any
    communication from [Burik] again until July 14,
    2013, when [Burik] sent him the following Facebook
    message:
    You do realize that you and your staff team
    deserve to be rotting in a jail cell now, right? I
    pray, everyday [sic], that St. Mary’s medical
    center is demolished while you are still in it. I
    pray everyone that you wronged comes back to
    you at night with a [sic] insatiable thirst for
    vengeance. Enjoy your life. As short as I hope
    that it is. You deserve less.
    Trial N.T. 49; See Exh. C -2. Shortly after receipt of
    all of these statements and/or messages, Mr.
    Aybinder brought them to the attention of the nurse
    manager for the emergency department of St. Mary
    Medical Center. Trial N.T., 47, 50, 52-53.
    On March 29, 2014, the Counter-Terrorism OPS Unit
    of the Philadelphia Police Department received
    -2-
    J-A25007-15
    information through a tip line that an individual, later
    identified as [Burik], made numerous threats
    through Facebook. Trial N.T., 10. Detective Lawrence
    Richardson of this unit conducted an independent
    investigation and, in doing so, verified and preserved
    this information. Id. at 10-11; See Exh. C-1.
    Detective Richardson discerned that “posts” made by
    [Burik] to the Facebook website from as recently as
    the day before the tip- March 28th were of concern
    and necessitated immediate law enforcement action.
    Trial N.T., 13, 17.
    In referencing the relevant posts, Detective
    Richardson recited, verbatim, their contents,
    including “Threatened by a cop? Don’t think twice.
    Kill em before he/she kills you. Try to do that job,
    pussies. It should’ve been a gun. And it should’ve
    fucked you all to death long ago. These people
    should be armed and they should be pulling their
    triggers down your throat. Go ahead. Stop me. I’ll
    fucking stop you forever, honey pie!” Trial N.T., 24;
    See Exh. C-1, p. 7. To this particular posting
    displayed on February 21, 2014, [Burik] further
    commented that he had a “wire saw” that fit in his
    wallet and proclaimed that “... Dude this shit cuts
    people in half in seconds,” “Also shreds through
    Kevlar, [G]ortex, flannel, lace, etc.,” “If you don’t
    shoot first ... Ah, well you’re just stupid,” etc. Trial
    N.T., 24 -25; See Exh, C-1, p. 7.
    Approximately a month later, on March 24th, [Burik]
    posted “If you like cops then you are still a whore.
    You are not a man until you've killed a cop.” Trial
    N.T., 23; See C-1, p. 5. Later that day, he also
    posted “Life goal: kill all cops in cold blood,” followed
    by his own comment that "[t]hey serve themselves.
    And they can continue to do so in hell. Drown em,
    bum em, electrocute em, starve em, cut em, hang
    em ... Do whatever ... Just exterminate them all. .. K
    ?” Id.
    On March 25th, [Burik] posted “Another wonderful
    day to kill cops on site,” followed by additional
    -3-
    J-A25007-15
    comments made in response to another individual’s
    criticism of this previous declaration, including, but
    not limited to “It is my duty to kill cops on sight,”
    “Bloody police badges are very well prized here;” “I'd
    collect testicles but since they possess none … ;” and
    “They want pain. We fucking give it to em!” Trial
    N.T., 20 -22; See Exh. C-1, p. 4.
    The posts made just one day prior to the tip that
    precipitated this investigation proved even more
    concerning as, on March 28th, [Burik] posted[,]
    “When you kiss your cop husband and go to work to
    St. Mary’s medical center, make sure that kiss
    means something. For there are those waiting for
    that right moment. Go to work. Do your flicking job.
    And die.” Trial N,T., 14; See Exh. C-1, page 1.
    Following this first post, [Burik] immediately posted,
    verbatim, as follows: “Put a flicking pipe bomb in St.
    Mary’s cunt. Remember my name.” Trial N,T,, 14;
    See Exh, C-1, p. 2. Following this statement, the
    post “goes through a series of R’s and A’s in which
    [Defendant] is simulating an explosion," Id.
    Detective Richardson described additional posts
    [Burik] made which were disconcerting, including the
    “comments” he made in response to his own post,
    which appear directly below, Trial N.T., 15-19; See
    Exh. C-1, p. 3. The post reads[,] “I wish to make
    hamburger meat out of all those who hold any
    minute association with St. Mary’s medical center.
    How many hale Mary’s? I think I’ve used all mine
    up.” Trial N.T. 17; See Exh. C-1, p. 3. [Burik’s] own
    replies to this post are documented sequentially as
    follows, verbatim:
    1. A pipe bomb with rosary beads. Metal ones of
    course. Where’s the Unabomber when you need him.
    I'll show em a little home grown.
    2. Turn that fucking place into a graveyard.
    3. It’ll be federal, but it’ll be worth it for the screams
    of anguish and the message conveyed.
    -4-
    J-A25007-15
    4. Have fun at work Monday, cocksuckers! Mother
    Mary gonna have a miscarry.
    5. Who will cover their asses when they’re all
    burning alive? Who will corroborate their false claims
    and statements? When shrapnel is sent hurling
    through their skulls.
    6. Coming after me won’t make you any less dead
    and forgotten.
    7. How well is that picture illustrated?
    8. Could use a little more red. Black. Gray.
    9. Still working on training your empaths [sic] for
    that pre -crime dream? Not soon enough. Help only
    comes when the last tune's been played, No one will
    save you!
    10. Not Jesus. Not Mary. Not the Holy Ghost. Not the
    Spirit, Not the Father. Go ahead. God to work. You’re
    fucking dead.
    11. Maybe make it a Sunday thing. More suiting ...
    The darkness will swallow you whole!!!
    12. 98.1 wogl better stop hocking their shit, Pay
    them a nice little visit. Hahahahahaha!!!
    13, Put a fucking pipe bomb in St. Mary’s cunt.
    Remember my name!!! ...
    Trial N.T. 17 -19; See Exh. C-1, p. 3.
    Mr. Aybinder was aware of the existence of these
    posts and comments and their contents. Trial N.T.,
    50. Significantly, although Mr. Aybinder is no longer
    employed by St. Mary Medical Center, his wife
    continues to work as a nurse in their emergency
    department. Id. at 50 51.
    -5-
    J-A25007-15
    Following review of the posts, Detective Richardson
    informed St. Mary Medical Center and the
    Middletown Township Police Department (“MTPD”),
    the township in which St. Mary Medical Center is
    situated, of the threats. Id. at 27-28. St. Mary
    Medical Center’s staff members were in turn advised
    of the threats. Id. at 58.
    Detective Richardson then attempted to locate
    [Burik], and he, along with other officers, “used a
    police system in which we run a person’s name
    through and it gave us a ... cell phone number for
    [Burik].” Trial N.T., 26. It was then determined,
    based on the cell phone number, that T-Mobile was
    the carrier. Id. T-Mobile was able to “ping” the cell
    phone to determine it’s [sic] exact location- which
    was 8100 Algon Avenue, Apartment 305, in the
    Northeast Section of Philadelphia. Id. at 26-27, 28.
    Law enforcement responded to that residence,
    secured the property, and thereafter knocked on the
    door and [Burik] answered. Id. at 28-29, 62-63.
    [Burik] gave consent for officers to search. Id. at 30.
    Officers conducted a search to determine whether
    there were any bombing materials or weapons in the
    apartment. Id. The search came back negative. Id.
    Thereafter, custody of [Burik] was turned over to
    Detective David Strother of the MTPD during the
    early morning hours of March 30, 2014, Id. at 31-
    32, 64-65, 69.
    At MTPD, Detective Strother apprised [Burik] of his
    rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, and [Burik]
    agreed to waive those rights and speak to the
    detective. Trial N.T., 65-68; see C-3. [Burik]
    admitted that he made all of the aforementioned
    posts from his cellular telephone. Trial N.T., 69-70.
    [Burik] explained that he was antiestablishment and
    anti-Catholic Church. Id. at 70-71.
    As a result of these threats, security at St. Mary was
    heightened and additional security guards were
    added. Id. at 56-57. Furthermore, although security
    guards at St. Mary are not ordinarily armed, private
    -6-
    J-A25007-15
    armed security was hired on a 24/7 basis for one (1)
    month. Id. at 57-58.
    [Burik] was arrested on March 30, 2014 and charged
    with two (2) counts of [s]talking, five (5) counts of
    [t]erroristic  [t]hreats,  five    (5)    counts   of
    [h]arassment, and three (3) counts of [t]hreat to
    [u]se [w]eapons of [m]ass [d]estruction (originally
    titled “[b]omb [t]hreats” and referred thereto
    throughout the Criminal Information).
    A waiver trial took place on August 19, 2014, and,
    following presentation of evidence and argument,
    [the trial court] found [Burik] guilty of the [two
    counts of each crime]. Sentencing was deferred
    pending a pre-sentence investigation and mental
    health evaluation.
    [Burik] was sentenced on December 16, 2014. On
    Count 1- [s]talking, he was sentenced to not less
    than eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days
    nor more than twenty-three (23) months and
    twenty-nine (29) days[] [of] incarceration.      On
    Count 3- [t]erroristic [t]hreats, [Burik] was
    sentenced to a five (5) year period of probation, to
    be served consecutively to his parole. Additionally,
    on Count 13- [threat to use weapons of mass
    destruction], [Burik] was sentenced to a second five
    (5) year period of probation, to be served
    consecutively to the period of probation imposed on
    Count 3. No further penalty was imposed on
    remaining counts.
    Trial Court Opinion, 4/20/15, at 1-7 (footnotes omitted).
    This timely appeal follows, in which Burik challenges the sufficiency of
    the evidence as to each of his convictions. When reviewing a sufficiency of
    the evidence claim, “we must determine whether the evidence admitted at
    trial, as well as all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, when viewed in
    -7-
    J-A25007-15
    the light most favorable to the verdict winner, are sufficient to support all
    elements of the offense.” Commonwealth v. Cox, 
    72 A.3d 719
    , 721 (Pa.
    Super. 2013) (quoting Commonwealth v. Koch, 
    39 A.3d 996
    , 1001 (Pa.
    Super. 2011)).    When performing this review, “we may not reweigh the
    evidence or substitute our own judgment for that of the fact finder.” 
    Id.
    Burik begins with his stalking convictions. The particular subsection of
    the stalking statute of which Burik was convicted provides that “[a] person
    commits the crime of stalking when the person … engages in a course of
    conduct or repeatedly communicates to another person under circumstances
    which demonstrate or communicate either an intent to place such other
    person in reasonable fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional
    distress to such other person.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709.1(a)(2).
    Burik was convicted of two counts of this crime, which alleged the
    stalking of Mr. Aybinder and St. Mary’s, respectively.         See Criminal
    Information, 6/26/14, at 1. With regard to the conviction relating to Burik’s
    contact with Mr. Aybinder, Burik argues that there was no evidence that he
    engaged in a course of conduct intending to place Mr. Aybinder in reasonable
    fear of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress, as there was
    no evidence as to what he said to Mr. Aybinder in the hospital or evidence of
    the content of one of the Facebook messages he sent to Mr. Aybinder.
    Burik’s Brief at 19-21.
    -8-
    J-A25007-15
    For this offense, the “course of conduct” element and the intent
    element are inextricably linked, as in order to establish the requisite course
    of conduct, one must establish that the communications at issue were made
    with the requisite intent (i.e., the intent to place a person in reasonable fear
    of bodily injury or to cause substantial emotional distress).     As such, this
    Court cannot decide whether the evidence is sufficient to establish a course
    of conduct without considering an appellant’s intent.
    In Commonwealth v. D’Collanfield, 
    805 A.2d 1244
     (Pa. Super.
    2002), the appellant sent nine emails to a psychologist who performed a
    court-ordered evaluation of the appellant for a separate criminal matter.
    The emails were not offered into evidence and there was no testimony as to
    the content of the emails.       The evidence established only that appellant
    began sending the emails after the psychologist evaluated the appellant, and
    that they “were harassing and frankly a bit bizarre in nature, and they did
    cause [the psychologist] a great amount of concern and alarm.”           
    Id. at 1248
    .    This Court concluded that the simple fact that the appellant sent
    multiple emails that caused the psychologist concern and alarm was
    sufficient to establish a course of conduct. This Court further held that the
    appellant’s intent in sending those messages may be determined by the
    totality of the circumstances:
    [T]he Commonwealth stated at the sentencing
    hearing that Appellant sent various bizarre [e]-mails
    to Dr. Dattilio over the course of a month. The
    -9-
    J-A25007-15
    Commonwealth presented evidence at Appellant’s
    hearing that indicated Dr. Dattilio felt “great concern
    and alarm” due to the harassing e-mails. It is also
    clear from Appellant’s testimony that he was enraged
    and out of control due to Dr. Dattilio’s diagnosis of
    him as a paranoid schizophrenic.
    We are convinced that this evidence was sufficient to
    indicate to the trial court that Appellant intended to
    cause substantial emotional distress to the victim. It
    is clear that simply because Appellant did not state
    specifically that he wished to cause “great concern
    and alarm” or “substantial emotional distress” to Dr.
    Dattilio that he did not intend to do so. We have held
    consistently that intent may be inferred from the
    words or actions of the defendant in light of all
    attendant     circumstances.     Commonwealth        v.
    Pasley, 
    743 A.2d 521
    , 524 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citing
    Commonwealth v. Chance, [] 
    458 A.2d 1371
     ([Pa.
    Super.] 1983)). Here, the trial court was able to infer
    the malevolent intent required to convict on a charge
    of stalking by communication because Appellant,
    incensed by Dr. Dattilio’s diagnosis, engaged in a
    repetitive course of harassment of Dr. Dattilio, the
    intent of which was to cause great concern and
    alarm.
    Id. at 1249 (footnote omitted).
    Similarly, in the present case, Burik contacted Mr. Aybinder after an
    interaction at St. Mary’s during which Burik believes he was sexually
    assaulted. See N.T., 12/16/14, at 21. Mr. Aybinder testified that although
    he could not recall the exact words used, the first message he received from
    Burik, in 2010, was “threatening in nature.”    N.T., 8/19/14, at 46.   Burik
    subsequently sent another Facebook message in 2013, the content of which
    is reproduced above.   See also Commonwealth’s Ex. C-1.        D’Collanfield
    - 10 -
    J-A25007-15
    instructs that we need not know the exact content of Burik’s 2010 Facebook
    message, as in consideration of the totality of the circumstances, specifically
    Mr. Aybinder’s interpretation of the message (that it was threatening in
    nature) and response to it (alerting his supervisor at St. Mary’s, id. at 47),
    coupled with his interpretation and response to the subsequent Facebook
    message (again alerting his supervisor at St. Mary’s, id. at 50), is sufficient
    to establish that Burik engaged in a course of conduct with the intent to
    cause Mr. Aybinder substantial emotional distress.2
    With regard to his conviction for stalking of St. Mary’s, Burik argues
    that because he made the Facebook posts about St. Mary’s “within a
    relatively short period of time (March 28 and 29, 2014), [they] should be
    considered one act as they were so close in time and are one Facebook
    thread.” Burik’s Brief at 21. He also argues that the conviction cannot stand
    because St. Mary’s in not a person. Burik makes both of these “arguments”
    without citation to or discussion of a single supportive authority. Our Rules
    of Appellate Procedure require that each issue an appellant raises must be
    supported by discussion and analysis of relevant authority. See Pa.R.A.P.
    2119. Burik has failed to do meet these requirements. It is well established
    that this court will not become the counsel for an appellant and develop
    arguments on an appellant’s behalf.     Commonwealth v. Kane, 
    10 A.3d 2
    Tellingly, Burik does not discuss or attempt to distinguish D’Collanfield in
    his argument on this issue.
    - 11 -
    J-A25007-15
    327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010). Accordingly, Burik has waived this issue. See
    Commonwealth v. Hunzer, 
    868 A.2d 498
    , 516 (Pa. Super. 2005) (holding
    that an appellant waived a claim where he failed to cite any legal authority
    in support of an argument in his appellate brief); Commonwealth v. Ellis,
    
    700 A.2d 948
    , 957 (Pa. Super. 1997) (holding waiver results if an appellant
    fails to properly develop an issue or cite to legal authority to support his
    contention in his appellate brief).3
    We reach the same conclusion with regard to Burik’s challenges to his
    harassment convictions, which also are based on the 2010 and 2013
    Facebook messages to Mr. Aybinder.4 After setting forth the definition of the
    crime, Burik baldly states that because we do not know the content of his
    2010 Facebook message to Mr. Aybinder, there is insufficient evidence to
    3
    Even if we were not to find this issue waived, it would not prevail. The
    record contains evidence of numerous Facebook posts and comments made
    by Burik in which he threatened to kill anyone affiliated with St. Mary’s and
    to deploy a pipe bomb to destroy St. Mary’s. Commonwealth’s Exhibit C-1.
    For purposes of stalking, a “course of conduct” is “pattern of actions
    composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short,
    evidencing a continuity of conduct.” Commonwealth v. Leach, 
    729 A.2d 608
    , 611 (Pa. Super. 1999) (emphasis added). Furthermore, we find Burik’s
    statements that he wants to destroy “all of those who hold any minute
    association with St. Mary’s” and “to make sure that kiss [goodbye to a
    spouse who works at St. Mary’s] means something. … Go to work. Do your
    fucking job. And die,” see Commonwealth’s Exhibit C-1, sufficient to support
    a finding that he was threatening the individuals that work for St. Mary’s,
    not St. Mary’s the corporate entity, as Burik suggests.
    4
    “A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass,
    annoy or alarm another, the person: … (4) communicates to or about such
    other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language,
    drawings or caricatures.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4).
    - 12 -
    J-A25007-15
    support a finding that he threatened him. Burik’s Brief at 24-25. He further
    argues that the 2013 Facebook message (the content of which is in
    evidence) “was not a threat.   [It] does not state anywhere that [Burik] is
    going to harm [Mr. Aybinder]. Essentially, [Burik] simply communicated his
    wishes that bad things happen to [Mr. Aybinder].” Id. at 25. Burik’s entire
    discussion as to both of these convictions, which he is challenging on
    different grounds, is eleven lines long, and he has failed to support his
    arguments with citation to, much less discussion of, supportive authority. As
    such, they are waived. Hunzer, 
    868 A.2d at 516
    ; Ellis, 
    700 A.2d at 957
    .5
    We now consider Burik’s convictions of terroristic threats.         The
    relevant statute provides that “[a] person commits the crime of terroristic
    threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to
    … commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another.”
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1). Burik begins from the premise that his
    convictions were based on the 2010 and 2013 Facebook messages, and
    5
    Again, we note that even if not waived, these issues would not provide
    relief. To begin, harassment is a lesser-included offense of stalking. See
    Commonwealth v. Reese, 
    725 A.2d 190
    , 192 (Pa. Super. 1999). As such,
    our discussion regarding whether it is critical to know the content of the
    2010 Facebook message in context of stalking applies equally to Burik’s
    harassment convictions. Second, Burik’s argument that the 2013 Facebook
    message was not threatening is challenging the trial court’s characterization
    of the message as such. Burik’s challenge is therefore truly to the weight,
    rather than the sufficiency, of the evidence. As he did not raise a challenge
    to the weight of the evidence in the trial court or in his Rule 1925(b)
    statement of matters complained of on appeal, he could not raise it on
    appeal. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).
    - 13 -
    J-A25007-15
    argues that his convictions are unsound because the Commonwealth failed
    to establish, in either message, the intent to commit any crime of violence
    against Mr. Aybinder. Burik’s Brief at 22-24.
    Preliminarily, we note that the criminal information and criminal
    complaint do not specify these Facebook messages as the bases for these
    charges or allege that the threats were made only against Mr. Aybinder.
    Both the criminal complaint and the criminal information charge Burik with
    five counts of terroristic threats, all of which allege that between 2010 and
    March 29, 2014, Burik “communicated, either directly or indirectly, a threat
    to commit a crime of violence with intent to terrorize another, namely,
    Joshua Aybinder and/or St. Mary Medical Center.”        Criminal Complaint,
    3/30/14, at 2; Criminal Information, 6/26/14, at 1. Burik was convicted of
    Counts Three and Four.    During its closing argument, the Commonwealth
    explained that Count Three was based solely on Burik’s February 16, 2010
    Facebook message to Mr. Aybinder and Count Four was based solely on the
    July 14, 2013 Facebook message. N.T., 8/19/14, at 92-93. By virtue of this
    clarification, the Commonwealth effectively orally amended the criminal
    information regarding these two counts, narrowing their scope.           See
    Pa.R.Crim.P. 564; Commonwealth v. Sinclair, 
    897 A.2d 1218
    , 1224 (Pa.
    Super. 2006) (holding that amendment of criminal information on day of
    trial is permissible if there is no showing of prejudice).   The trial court
    permitted this amendment and Burik did not object, and so we accept that
    - 14 -
    J-A25007-15
    Counts Three and Four are based, respectively, on the 2010 and 2013
    Facebook messages to Mr. Aybinder.6
    The relevant statute provides that “[a] person commits the crime of
    terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a
    threat to … commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another.”
    18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2706(a)(1). With respect to the 2010 Facebook message to
    Mr. Aybinder, Burik argues that his conviction cannot stand because there is
    no evidence as to the content of this message. Burik’s Brief at 22-23. Burik
    does not cite any authority to support his claim that the content of the
    communication must be known in order to support a conviction of terroristic
    threats. To the contrary, the law provides that elements of this offense may
    be inferred from the totality of the circumstances. See Commonwealth v.
    Butcher, 
    644 A.2d 174
    , 176 (Pa. Super. 1994); Commonwealth v.
    Ferrer, 
    423 A.2d 423
    , 425 (Pa. Super. 1980).         The evidence establishes
    that Mr. Aybinder assisted in an emergency room procedure on Burik in
    6
    The trial court indicates that Burik’s terroristic threats convictions were
    based on two specific incidents; the 2009 emergency room encounter
    between Burik and Mr. Aybinder (Count Three) and the Facebook messages
    from 2010 and 2013 (Count Four). Trial Court Opinion, 4/20/15, at 13-14.
    This is incorrect. As we have just explained, the Commonwealth based
    these counts specifically on the 2010 and 2013 Facebook messages to
    Aybinder. However, as we explain infra, there are other bases upon which
    we rely to conclude that the trial court’s rejection of Burik’s claims was
    proper. See Commonwealth v. Singletary, 
    803 A.2d 769
    , 772-73 (Pa.
    Super. 2002) (“It is well settled that where the result is correct, an appellate
    court may affirm a lower court's decision on any ground without regard to
    the ground relied upon by the lower court itself.”).
    - 15 -
    J-A25007-15
    2009, during which Burik threatened Mr. Aybinder.      N.T., 8/19/14, at 45.
    One year later, Burik sent Mr. Aybinder an “alarming” message on Facebook
    that was “threatening in nature.” Id. at 46. Mr. Aybinder could not recall
    the exact words used by Burik in this message, but he was sufficiently
    concerned by its content that he informed the nurse manager of St. Mary’s
    emergency department of it. Id. at 47. In consideration of the totality of
    these circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that the content of the 2010
    Facebook message contained a threat of violence, as Mr. Aybinder
    characterized it as “threatening”; the nature of the message prompted Mr.
    Aybinder to tell his supervisor about it; and Burik previously threatened Mr.
    Aybinder. Further, we can infer that Burik intended to terrorize Mr. Aybinder
    with the threat, as Burik believed Mr. Aybinder participated in a sexual
    assault against him. We therefore conclude that the evidence is sufficient to
    support Burik’s conviction on this count.
    With regard to the 2013 Facebook message, Burik argues that the
    evidence was insufficient because the message did not threaten Mr. Aybinder
    with a crime of violence.    Burik’s Brief at 23-24.   Burik is attempting to
    advance this issue for the first time on appeal.        In his court-ordered
    Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal, Burik first
    alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support this conviction because
    “the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the intent
    elements of such offenses[.]” Concise Statement of Matters Complained of
    - 16 -
    J-A25007-15
    on Appeal, 2/4/15, ¶ 1.       He also alleged that that the evidence was
    insufficient to support this conviction because Mr. Aybinder could not recall
    specifically what Burik said to him prior to July of 2013. Id. ¶ 2. He did not
    include the issue he now seeks to raise on appeal. It is axiomatic that issues
    not included in a court-ordered statement of matters complained of are
    waived for purposes of appeal. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 
    10 A.3d 341
    ,
    347 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2010); Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Our Supreme Court
    has repeatedly reiterated that this is a bright-line rule and that “in order to
    preserve their claims for appellate review, appellants must comply whenever
    the trial court orders them to file a [s]tatement of [m]atters [c]omplained of
    on [a]ppeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P.
    1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.” Commonwealth v. Castillo,
    
    888 A.2d 775
    , 780 (Pa. 2005); see also Commonwealth v. Hill, 
    16 A.3d 484
    , 494 (Pa. 2011). Here, as the lower court ordered Burik to file a Rule
    statement of matters complained of on appeal, see Trial Court Order,
    1/15/15, and he failed to include this issue therein, we must find that it has
    been waived.
    Finally, we turn to Burik’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to
    support his convictions of threat to use weapons of mass destruction, which
    is defined as follows: “A person who intentionally … threatens by any means
    the placement or setting of a weapon of mass destruction; commits an
    offense under this section. A separate offense shall occur for each report or
    - 17 -
    J-A25007-15
    threat to place or set a weapon of mass destruction.”         18 Pa.C.S.A. §
    2715(a)(4). Burik argues that this evidence was insufficient because it did
    not establish an explicit threat that Burik, himself, would place a bomb at St.
    Mary’s. Burik’s Brief at 26.
    We disagree.    The evidence against Burik includes a Facebook post
    from March 29, 2014 in which Burik states, “Put a fucking pipe bomb in St.
    Mary’s cunt. Remember my name!!!”        Commonwealth Exhibit C-1.         Burik
    then comments immediately under this statement, “Watch me!”          Id.    The
    evidence also included a Facebook post by Burik from March 28, 2014, in
    which he stated, “I wish to make hamburger meat out of all those who hold
    any minute association with St. Mary’s medical center.”     N.T., 8/19/14, at
    17; see also Commonwealth Exhibit C-1.          Under this statement, Burik
    commented, “A pipe bomb with rosary beads.            Metal ones of course.
    Where’s the Unabomber when you need him. I’ll show em [sic] a little home
    grown.”   Id.   Viewing these statements in the light most favorable to the
    Commonwealth, we have no hesitancy in concluding that it established
    threats by Burik to place bombs in St. Mary’s Medical Center. Of note, Burik
    states that he wants to make “hamburger meat” out of anyone affiliated
    with St. Mary’s, and then immediately references a pipe bomb and states
    that in the absence of the Unabomber (the notorious manufacturer of
    homemade bombs), he’ll “shown em [sic] a little home grown.” Similarly,
    the use of the phrases “remember my name” and “watch me” after the
    - 18 -
    J-A25007-15
    statement, “Put a fucking pipe bomb in St. Mary’s cunt” also supports the
    conclusion that Burik threatened to bomb St. Mary’s Medical Center himself.
    We therefore find no merit to his claim.
    Judgment of sentence affirmed.
    Mundy, J. joins the Memorandum.
    Fitzgerald, J. files a Concurring and Dissenting Statement.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 12/18/2015
    - 19 -