Com. v. Stokes, G. ( 2018 )

J-S74003-18
J-S74004-18
J-S74005-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
GERALD K. STOKES :
:
Appellant : No. 2485 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 13, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0014259-2013
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
GERALD K. STOKES :
:
Appellant : No. 2486 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 13, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011050-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
GERALD K. STOKES :
:
Appellant : No. 2487 EDA 2017
J-S74003-18
J-S74004-18
J-S74005-18
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 13, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0011073-2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 21, 2018
Gerald K. Stokes appeals from the judgment of sentence, entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, following his conviction on a
series of sexual offenses filed under three separate bills of information.1 Upon
review, we find Stokes’ briefs substantially deficient and deem his claims
waived. Accordingly, we affirm his judgment of sentence.
On October 11, 2016, in a consolidated trial, Stokes was found guilty of
the following crimes: rape of a child, rape by forcible compulsion, corruption
of a minor, and two counts of unlawful contact with a minor (docket no. CP-
51-CR-0014529-2013); rape by forcible compulsion (docket no. CP-51-CR-
0011050-2015); and rape of a child (docket no. CP-52-CR-0011073-2015).
He was sentenced on February 13, 2017, and his motion for reconsideration
was denied on March 23, 2017. Stokes’ timely notice of appeal followed on
April 21, 2017.2
____________________________________________
1 We have consolidated these appeals sua sponte, as they involve the same
facts and legal issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
2 His appeal was forwarded to the Superior Court without an opinion, as the
presiding judge no longer sits on the Court of Common Pleas.
-2-
J-S74003-18
J-S74004-18
J-S74005-18
Under Pa.R.A.P. 2119, any appeal, including those challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence must provide some analysis of the legal claims to
provide this court with “a basis upon with to review [appellant’s] claims.” See
Commonwealth v. Hakala, 900 A.2d 404, 406 (Pa. Super. 2006) (finding
waiver where brief “failed to provide significant analysis of his claims or to
offer citations of law . . . other than the standard of review”). When
deficiencies in a brief prevent this court from conducting meaningful review,
“we may dismiss the appeal entirely, or find certain issues to be waived.”
Commonwealth v. Hardy, 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super 2007) (citing
Pa.R.A.P. 2101).
Stokes filed nearly identical briefs under each docket number. All three
assert a single claim—there was insufficient evidence to convict him of “rape
and related offenses.” Brief of Appellant (2485 EDA 2017), at 3; Brief of
Appellant (2486 EDA 2017), at 3; Brief of Appellant (2487 EDA 2017), at 3.
None of the briefs, however, addresses the sufficiency of the evidence
underpinning his convictions.3 Stokes rarely goes beyond reciting a standard
____________________________________________
3 The closest Stokes comes to addressing the sufficiency of the evidence is an
assertion that “none of the complainants reported the sexual offenses
contemporaneously with any event.” Brief of Appellant (2485 EDA 2017), at
17; Brief of Appellant (2486 EDA 2017), at 16; Brief of Appellant (2487 EDA
2017), at 17. Not only is this assertion unsupported by citations to the record
or developed in light of any case law, it does not explicate a sufficiency claim.
See Commonwealth v. Gaskins, 692 A.2d 224, 227 (Pa. Super. 1997)
(“credibility determinations are made by the fact finder and . . . challenges
thereto go to the weight, and not the sufficiency, of the evidence”).
-3-
J-S74003-18
J-S74004-18
J-S74005-18
or definition verbatim, and never applies the facts of the case to the law. Brief
of Appellant (2485 EDA 2017), at 16–18; Brief of Appellant (2486 EDA 2017),
at 15–17; Brief of Appellant (2487 EDA 2017), at 16–18. Because Stokes fails
to offer analysis or case law in support of his claims, we deem them waived.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/21/18
-4-