Com. v. Jones, V.

J-S43009-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
VERNANDO R. JONES
Appellant No. 3409 EDA 2012
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 8, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005904-2011
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., and FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 29, 2014
Appellant, Vernando R. Jones, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, following his
bench trial convictions of second degree murder, burglary, aggravated
assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, criminal
trespass, and possessing an instrument of crime.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502(b), 3502(a), 2702(a), 2701(a), 2705, 3503(a)(1)(ii),
and 907(a), respectively.
______________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S43009-14
restate them in their entirety.2
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO AN ARREST OF JUDGMENT
ON THE CHARGE OF MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE
AND ALL OTHER CHARGES AS THE VERDICT IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AS THE
COMMONWEALTH DID NOT PROVE THAT [APPELLANT]
WAS AN ACTOR, CONSPIRATOR OR ACCOMPLICE WITH
REGARD TO THE HOMICIDE, NOR DID THE
COMMONWEALTH PROVE THAT [APPELLANT], IF HE
ACTED, ACTED WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO KILL OR
PREMEDITATION OR WITH MALICE?
IS [APPELLANT] ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL AS THE
VERDICT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE GREATER WEIGHT
OF THE EVIDENCE?
____________________________________________
2
Appellant and the female victim dated briefly in 2010. Shortly thereafter,
female victim severed contact with Appellant when the male victim moved in
with female victim. Over the next several months, Appellant sent female
victim a large number of text messages to which female victim rarely
responded. On February 25, 2011, female victim called Appellant and asked
to borrow money. That same day, Appellant spent several hours with
female victim in her home, and eventually agreed to lend female victim the
money. Appellant sent female victim text and voicemail messages over the
next several days which indicated his desire to rekindle their romantic
threatening and derogatory messages. On February 28, 2011, Appellant
called female victim several times in the early morning, and kicked down
bathroom, and attacked her with his fists, feet, and knife. When male victim
tried to intervene, Appellant fatally stabbed him in the chest and fled the
scene. Appellant was subsequently arrested. Female victim identified
Appellant as the individual who broke into her home and fatally stabbed
male victim.
-2-
J-S43009-14
f the evidence
Commonwealth v.
Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273, 1277 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 581 Pa.
672, 863 A.2d 1143 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim
challenging the weight of the evidence generally cannot be raised for the
first time in a Rule 1925(b) statement. Commonwealth v. Burkett, 830
the prescribed methods for presenting a weight of the evidence issue to the
trial court constitutes waiver of that claim, even if the trial court responds to
the claim in its Rule 1925(a) opinion. Id. Instantly, Appellant failed to raise
at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion his claim regarding weight of the
evidence. Rather, Appellant raised the claim for the first time in his Rule
waived. See id.After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Rose DeFino-
relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly
disposes of the question presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed
September 16, 2013, at 9) (finding: Appellant forcibly entered female
footprint was found by doorknob; totality of circumstances permit inference
-3-
J-S43009-14
that Appellant intended criminal purpose; female victim identified Appellant
as individual who forcibly entered her home and murdered male victim;
female victim was credible eyewitness; text and voicemail messages
between female victim and Appellant corroborated f
events; evidence was sufficient to convict Appellant of second degree
murder and related offenses).3
decision; therefore, we have no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm
on the basis
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/29/2014
____________________________________________
3
We note the trial court opinion mistakenly refers to female victim as Ms.
Brooks.
-4-