Com. v. Steffie, S.

J-A16027-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
SAMUAL STEFFIE JR.
Appellant No. 1936 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence entered July 22, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division at No: CP-54-CR-0002094-2018
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2020
Appellant, Samual Steffie Jr., appeals from the judgment of sentence
the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill entered July 22, 2019. On appeal,
Appellant raises a weight of the evidence claim. For the reasons explained
below, we affirm the judgment of sentence.
The factual and procedural background of the instant appeal is
uncontested. The trial court summarized it as follows:
On June 10, 2019, [Appellant] was found guilty after a jury trial
of aggravated assault[,] and simple assault[,] as a result of an
incident that occurred on September 19, 2018[,] where
[Appellant] did attempt by physical menace, to put Officer Klink
of the Minersville Police Department in fear of unlawful serious
bodily injury. On July 22, 2019, [Appellant] was sentenced on the
aggravated assault charge to 21 months to 4 years in a State
Correctional Institution. The simple assault charge merged with
the aggravated assault charge. On August 19, 2019, [Appellant]
filed a notice of appeal with regard to the sentence imposed on
July 22, 2019. On August 21, 2019, [the trial court] entered an
J-A16027-20
[o]rder upon [Appellant] to set forth a concise statement of
matters complained of on appeal . . . with that statement being
filed on August 29, 2019.
Trial Court Opinion, 10/09/19, at 1.
On appeal, Appellant challenges the weight of the evidence supporting
his conviction.1 The Commonwealth argues that Appellant waived his
challenge to the weight of the evidence. We agree.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 607 requires that a “claim that
the verdict is 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. This claim must be presented to
the trial court while it exercises jurisdiction over a matter since “appellate
review of a weight claim is a review of the exercise of discretion, not of the
underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the
evidence.” Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000).
Instantly, Appellant failed to raise the weight of the evidence claim orally or
in writing prior to or after sentencing. In fact, Appellant raised the claim for
the first time in his Rule 1925(b) statement, which is insufficient to preserve
____________________________________________
1 In his Rule 1925 statement, Appellant raised two claims: weight of the
evidence and best evidence. On appeal, Appellant, abandoned the best
evidence claim, raising only a weight of the evidence claim.
-2-
J-A16027-20
it for appellate review. See Commonwealth v. Sherwood, 982 A.2d 483(Pa. 2009). In Sherwood, the Supreme Court noted:
Regarding [a]ppellant’s weight of the evidence claim[,] we note
that [a]ppellant did not make a motion raising a weight of the
evidence claim before the trial court as the Pennsylvania Rules of
Criminal Procedure require. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). The fact
that [a]ppellant included an issue challenging the verdict on
weight of the evidence grounds in his 1925(b) statement and the
trial court addressed [a]ppellant’s weight claim in its Pa.R.A.P
1925(a) opinion did not preserve his weight of the evidence claim
for appellate review in the absence of an earlier motion.
Id. at 494 (footnote omitted).
Because Appellant’s weight of the evidence claim fails to comport with
the above rules, we conclude it is waived.2 Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 09/09/2020
____________________________________________
2 Additionally, we note Appellant failed to comply, inter alia, with Pa.R.A.P.
2117(c) and 2119(e), both requiring Appellant to state the place of raising or
preserving the weight of the evidence issue.
-3-