Com. v. Gomez, S. ( 2023 )

J-S07015-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SANTO GOMEZ :
:
Appellant : No. 401 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 7, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-CR-0009910-2017
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and KING, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED MAY 9, 2023
Appellant, Santo Gomez,1 appeals from the February 7, 2019 Judgment
of Sentence entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas
following his conviction of Unlawful Contact with a Minor, Endangering the
Welfare of a Child, Corruption of a Minor, and Indecent Assault of a Person
Less than 13 Years of Age.2 After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are, briefly, as follows. On
October 18, 2017, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with the above
crimes after the granddaughter of Appellant’s paramour reported to a social
worker that Appellant had been sexually assaulting her. Appellant waived his
____________________________________________
1 We have amended the case caption to reflect that the proper spelling of
Appellant’s name is “Santo” and not “Santos” as listed on the notice of appeal
filed by Appellant’s counsel.
2 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 6318(a)(1), 4304(a)(1), 6301(a)(1)(ii), and 3126(a)(7),
respectively.
J-S07015-23
right to a jury trial, and on December 7, 2018, the trial court convicted
Appellant of each of the charged offenses.
On February 7, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an
aggregate term of 16 to 32 months of incarceration followed by 6 years of
probation. Appellant did not file a post-sentence motion or timely appeal from
his judgment of sentence.
On January 12, 2022, the trial court reinstated Appellant’s direct appeal
rights nunc pro tunc and this appeal followed. Both Appellant and the trial
court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
Did the Trial Court fail to consider the speculative and
contradictory nature testimony sufficiently in handing deal his
determination of guilt.
Appellant’s Brief at 5 (verbatim).
In his three-paragraph argument to this Court, Appellant recounts the
victim’s trial testimony and asserts that, because the victim’s testimony was
uncorroborated with any other testimony or physical evidence, it was
insufficient to convict Appellant “of the sexual assault charges in this matter.”
Id. at 9. Appellant concedes that “one can be found guilty in these matters
on the value of the alleged victim[’]s uncorroborated testimony alone.” Id.
at 10. (citing Commonwealth v. Cramer, 195 A.3d 594 (Pa. Super. 2018).
Nevertheless, he concludes that “there should be more than mere statements,
but solid indicia that the incidents happen[ed].” Id.-2-
J-S07015-23
It is axiomatic that appellate briefs must conform to the Pennsylvania
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pa.R.A.P. 2101. Rule 2119 requires that the
argument section “be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be
argued” and include “such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed
pertinent.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). When discussing record evidence, the Rules
require an appellant to set forth a “reference to the place in the record where
the matter referred to appears.” Pa.R.A.P. 2119(c). “Where an appellate brief
fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or
fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review,
that claim is waived.” Umbelina v. Adams, 34 A.3d 151, 161 (Pa. Super.
2011) (citation omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel and will not
develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” Commonwealth v. Kane, 10
A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted).
Here, the court convicted Appellant of four offenses and Appellant
challenges them together, in one section of his brief, in contravention of our
Rules of Appellate Procedure. Moreover, he has not set forth the statutes
defining the elements of the crimes of which he was convicted, nor has he
argued with specificity which of the elements of each of the crimes the
Commonwealth purportedly failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additionally, although Appellant refers summarily to trial evidence, he has
failed to provide any citations to the record or to apply the facts of this case
-3-
J-S07015-23
to relevant authority.3 Because of these significant defects, we are unable to
conduct meaningful appellate review. Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence is, thus, waived, and we affirm Appellant’s convictions.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/9/2023
____________________________________________
3 We acknowledge that Appellant provided citation to two cases pertaining to
this Court’s standard of review of challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence
and cited to Commonwealth v. Bennett, 303 A.2d 220 (Pa. Super. 1973)
(finding inconsistent testimony by the Commonwealth’s main witness created
a situation where the jury could do nothing but speculate about the
defendant’s guilt). He has not, however, applied the holding in Bennett to
the facts of this case or explained how the court violated Bennett in convicting
him of the charged offenses.
-4-