Com. v. Carter, J.

J-S58040-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JAMES EDWARD CARTER, JR.
Appellant No. 604 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 14, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-04-CR-0001556-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
Appellant, James Edward Carter, Jr., appeals from the judgment of
sentence entered in the Beaver County Court of Common Pleas, following his
jury trial conviction for default in required appearance.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT
SUFFICIENT TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
THAT APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME ALLEGED?
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5124(a).
_________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S58040-14
WHETHER THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT APPELLANT
IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME ALLEGED?
2
As a preliminary matter, generally, a challenge to the weight of the
evidence must be preserved by a motion for a new trial. Pa.R.Crim.P. 607.
The Rule provides:
Rule 607. Challenges to the Weight of the Evidence
(A) A claim that the verdict was against the weight of the
evidence shall be raised with the trial judge in a motion for
a new trial:
(1) orally, on the record, at any time before
sentencing;
(2) by written motion at any time before sentencing; or
(3) in a post-sentence motion.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A)(1)-
purpose of this rule is to make it clear that a challenge to the weight of the
Commonwealth v. Gillard, 850 A.2d 1273, 1277 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal
denied, 581 Pa. 672, 863 A.2d 1143 (2004). 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 A.2d 1034
____________________________________________
2
the Statement of Questions Presented at page 7.
-2-
J-S58040-14
(Pa.Supe
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 challenge the weight of the evidence
before the trial court in a motion for a new trial. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607.
Rather, Appellant raised his weight claim for the first time in his Rule
1925(b) statement. See Burkett, supra. Thus, his first issue on appeal is
waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607; Gillard, supra; Burkett, supra.3
after a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable
law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Kim Tesla, we conclude
comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of that question. (See
____________________________________________
3
explanations at trial, regarding why he failed to report to serve his sentence,
ven if Appellant had
properly preserved his weight claim for appellate review, we would see no
See Commonwealth v.
Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 832 A.2d 403 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939,
124 S. Ct. 2906, 159 L. Ed. 2d 816 (2004) (explaining weight of evidence is
exclusively for finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of
evidence and to determine credibility of witnesses; this Court cannot
substitute its judgment for that of fact-finder and may reverse verdict only if
-3-
J-S58040-14
Trial Court Opinion, filed May 12, 2014, at 3-5) (finding: pursuant to March
5, 2013 sentencing order, court directed Appellant to report to serve
required appearance was to serve sentence for felony conviction; despite
efforts to locate Appellant after he failed to report, police did not discover
Appellant until August 4, 2013; Commonwealth demonstrated that Appellant
went into hiding to avoid apprehension and punishment; Appellant
consciously disregarded substantial and unjustifiable risk of obstructing
criminal justice system by failing to report, constituting reckless behavior;
Appellant proffered no lawful excuse for failing to report; Commonwealth
presented sufficient evidence to sustain verdict). Accordi
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/15/2014
-4-