Com. v. Bonnett, P. ( 2020 )

J-S38037-20
2020 PA Super 231COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
PRESTON DAQUEN BONNETT :
:
Appellant : No. 1826 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-40-CR-0004301-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
PRESTON DAQUEN BONNETT :
:
Appellant : No. 1827 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 5, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-40-CR-0004302-2017
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:
In these consolidated appeals,1 Appellant Preston Daquen Bonnett
appeals from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas
of Luzerne County on June 5, 2019, following his convictions of three counts
____________________________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 In our Per Curiam Order entered on December 16, 2019, this Court
consolidated the appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
J-S38037-20
each of Second Degree Murder, Third Degree Murder and Arson on two
separate informations.2
The learned trial court, The Honorable Michael T. Vough, provided a
detailed summary of the facts and procedural history of Appellant’s two
underlying cases as follows:
This matter arises from two informations filed by the
Luzerne County District Attorney against [Appellant] on January
3, 2018. Information number 4301 charged [Appellant] with one
count of criminal homicide. Information number 4302 charged
[Appellant] with two counts of criminal homicide and three counts
of arson endangering persons. These charges resulted from the
deaths of three children in an intentionally set fire which occurred
at their home on October 25, 2017.
At approximately 7:08 p.m. on October 25, 2017, the
Luzerne County Communications Center received a 911 call from
Erik Dupree regarding an individual on the back porch of the
residence located at 60 Oakwood Drive, Laflin Borough, Luzerne
County, Pennsylvania. Erik Dupree was sixteen years old and
resided at 60 Oakwood Drive with his mother, Susan Major, and
younger brothers, Devon Major and Ezekial Major. The individual
on the back porch was [Appellant] and he was not permitted at
the residence. Four minutes later, the Luzerne County
Communication Center received a 911 call from a neighbor
reporting that the back of the property located at 60 Oakwood
Drive was on fire. Erik Dupree, Devon Major and Ezekial Major
were home at the time of the fire and all three died as a result
thereof.
During the course of their investigation, the Pennsylvania
State Police learned that [Appellant] had been in a relationship
with Susan Major. They also learned that [Appellant] had
equipment which allowed him to make fraudulent credit cards and
he conspired with Susan Major to use the fraudulent cards. This
activity eventually led to their arrest after a fraudulent card was
used at a Turkey Hill.
Following the incident at Turkey Hill, [Appellant] continued
to contact Susan Major and moved into the basement of her
____________________________________________
2 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2502 (b), (c) and 3301(a)(11), respectively.
-2-
J-S38037-20
residence along with a woman named Tyla Griffin. After two days,
Susan Major told [Appellant] and Tyla Griffin to leave the house.
Although [Appellant] and Ms. Griffin vacated the residence, they
left the credit card making equipment inside along with other
items that Susan Major retained. The credit card making
equipment was turned over to police.
Even after leaving 60 Oakwood Drive, [Appellant] continued
his attempts to contact Susan Major. Sometime in October, 2017,
Susan Major found three pictures taped to her home which
depicted her performing a sex act on [Appellant]. All of the
pictures contained a note advising Susan Major to text a
designated phone number or the individual who left the pictures
would be back. Tyla Griffin identified the phone number and
writing on the pictures to be [Appellant’s].
Because Susan Major and her children were afraid of
[Appellant], she obtained cameras contained in Minion figurines
from the movie Despicable Me. These cameras were placed at the
front of her house as well as the rear near the back porch. The
cameras had the capability to record and Erik Dupree was able to
see in front and behind his house by using his cell phone which
was connected to the cameras.
Prior to October 25, 2017, [Appellant] stated to Tyla Griffin
that he would burn Susan Major's house down. He made similar
comments on several occasions even after Ms. Griffin reminded
him that the children would be in the house. [Appellant] went so
far as to say Susan Major can watch her kids burn.
On the evening of the fire, Erik Dupree looked at his phone
and saw [Appellant] on the back porch of his residence. Erik
Dupree called 911 and within four minutes 60 Oakwood Drive was
reported to be on fire. He died in the fire along with his two
brothers. The cause of death for Erik Dupree and Devon Major was
carbon monoxide poisoning due to smoke inhalation from a house
fire. The cause of death for Ezekiel Major was a combination of
smoke inhalation and burns due to the house fire. Homicide was
the manner of death for all three boys.
Immediately after the fire, [Appellant] was taken into
custody on an outstanding warrant for access device fraud as well
as to be interviewed in connection with the fire. During the
interview [Appellant] denied having a cell phone or a vehicle. He
also denied being at Susan Major's home at 7:00 p.m. on October
25, 2017. The state police subsequently determined that
[Appellant] had a cell phone and drove a grayish-green Ford
Taurus. He also admitted that he had been at Susan Major's
residence on October 25, 2017.
-3-
J-S38037-20
A search warrant was executed on a room in which
[Appellant] and Tyla Griffm were living in the City of Wilkes-Barre
on October 26, 2017. A pair of jeans and a sweatshirt were
recovered along with a cell phone.
Although the minion containing the camera from the back
porch was never recovered, the video was obtained. An individual
wearing the same sweatshirt and jeans seized during the search
of [Appellant’s] room could be seen on the video. This video
depicted [Appellant] on the back porch as described by Erik
Dupree in the 911 call.
[Appellant’s] iPhone was examined by a member of the
Pennsylvania State Police Computer Crime Unit. This examination
revealed that the iPhone connected to a wireless router at 60
Oakwood Drive at 7:08 p.m. on October 25, 2017. Also located on
the [Appellant’s] iPhone was a photograph of the minion camera
which was taken at 7:26 p.m. on October 25. The photograph also
depicted a pair of jeans with the same unique ridge pattern as
seen in the video and on the jeans taken from [Appellant’s] room
in Wilkes-Barre. The user account for the Minion camera came
back to Erik Dupree.
The Commonwealth presented the testimony of a fire
investigation expert employed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms. A State Police Fire Marshal also testified as an
expert. Both agreed that the fire was intentionally set and the area
of origin was at the rear of the home near the back porch. Less
than two weeks prior to the fire, Susan Major discovered a hole in
a back window near the area of origin and a beer bottle inside the
residence on the floor. Accidental and natural causes of the fire
were ruled out as was a baseboard heater which [Appellant]
alleged to have been the source of the fire.
An expert in electrical engineering and electrical causation
of fires also testified as a witness for the Commonwealth. He
inspected the baseboard heater and eliminated it as a potential
cause of the fire. This expert also examined the home and
determined that neither the electrical system, nor the electrical
devices in the home, caused the fire.
Criminal complaints were filed against [Appellant] on
October 30 and 31, 2017. [Appellant] maintained his innocence
and proceeded to trial. Following a five day trial which concluded
on June 4, 2019, the jury found [Appellant] guilty of three counts
of second degree murder, three counts of third degree murder and
three counts of arson endangering persons. On June 5, 2019,
[Appellant] was sentenced to three consecutive mandatory terms
of life imprisonment on the three counts of second degree murder,
-4-
J-S38037-20
ten to twenty years concurrent on the three counts of third degree
murder and the three counts of arson endangering persons
merged with second degree murder. On June 10, 2019, an order
was issued which vacated the ten to twenty year sentence
imposed on the three counts of third degree murder based upon
merger and the law as set forth in Commonwealth v. McCamey,
154 A.3d 352, 358 (Pa.Super. 2017).
[Appellant’s] post-sentence motions were denied on
October 9, 2019. A notice of appeal was then filed twenty-eight
days later. After receiving [Appellant’s] notice of appeal, an order
was issued on November 8, 2019 which required that a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b) be filed by [Appellant] within twenty-one days. A concise
statement was filed on his behalf on December 2, 2019.
[Appellant’s] concise statement raises weight and
sufficiency claims for each charge. Error is also alleged in
connection with the denial of [Appellant’s] post-trial motions
requesting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial
and a judgment of acquittal. Finally, Appellant alleges error by
the court in denying his motion for change of venue and motion
for a Frye[3] hearing.
Trial Court Opinion, filed 1/6/20, at 1-5 (unnumbered).
In his appellate brief, Appellant presents the following Statement of
Questions Involved:
A. Whether the [c]ourt erred in Denying [Appellant’s] Motion for a
Frye Hearing challenging the admissibility of Trooper Karri
Dodson testimony’s [sic] as an expert witness?
B. Whether there was insufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of
guilty of each charge in each case?
____________________________________________
3 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Under Frye, novel
scientific evidence must be generally accepted in the relevant scientific
community before it will be admitted. See Betz v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, 615
Pa. 504, 44 A.3d 27, 30 (Pa. 2012). Pennsylvania Courts utilize the Frye test.
See id.-5-
J-S38037-20
Brief for Appellant at 4.
Appellant first argues the trial court erred in failing to hold a Frye4
hearing prior to permitting State Fire Marshall Trooper Karri Dodson to testify
as an expert witness in the field of fire investigation. Appellant's Brief at 34.5
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently observed “[w]hen reviewing a trial
court’s grant or denial of a Frye motion, an abuse of discretion standard
applies.” Walsh Estate of Walsh v. BASF Corp., 2020 WL 4135151, at *6
____________________________________________
4 Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of scientific
evidence. The Rule has been written to incorporate the standard set forth in
Frye and states:
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an
opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or otherwise specialized
knowledge is beyond that possessed by the average
layperson;
(b) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will help the trier of fact understand the evidence
or to determine a fact in issue; and
(c) the expert's methodology is generally accepted in the
relevant field.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 702.
5 Appellant also states that the trial court erred by allowing “by extension
Agent [Robert Seth] Graybill to testify at trial.” Id. However, as we shall
discuss in more detail, infra, Appellant has waived any argument as to the
admissibility of Agent Graybill’s testimony for his failure to raise such a claim
in his concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. See
Commonwealth v Lord, 553 Pa. 415, 420, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (1998).
-6-
J-S38037-20
(Pa. July 21, 2020) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we apply an abuse of
discretion standard in our review of the trial court’s denial of the Appellant’s
Frye motion. In proceeding with our Frye analysis, we are guided by the
following:
This Court has explained that scientific evidence is “novel”
when “there is a legitimate dispute regarding the reliability of the
expert's conclusions.” Commonwealth v. Safka, 95 A.3d 304,
307 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation and quotation omitted). To be
admissible at trial, the methodology underlying the novel scientific
evidence “must have gained general acceptance in the relevant
scientific community.” Commonwealth v. Powell, 171 A.3d 294,
307 (Pa. Super. 2017).
A trial court is not required to conduct a Frye hearing any
time a party seeks to introduce scientific evidence. “Rather, a
hearing is warranted only when the trial court has articulable
grounds to believe that an expert witness has not applied accepted
scientific methodology in a conventional fashion in reaching his or
her conclusions.” [Commonwealth v.]Jacoby, 170 A.3d [1065,]
1091 [(Pa. 2017)]. A party opposing the scientific evidence must
demonstrate that the expert's testimony is based on novel
scientific evidence, i.e., “that there is a legitimate dispute
regarding the reliability of the expert's conclusions.” Safka, 95
A.3d at 307. “If the moving party has identified novel scientific
evidence, then the proponent of the scientific evidence must show
that the expert's methodology has general acceptance in the
relevant scientific community despite the legitimate dispute.” Id.(citation and quotation omitted). See also Jacoby, 170 A.3d at
1091; Powell, 171 A.3d at 307 (rejecting claim that
Commonwealth, the proponent of expert testimony, had the initial
burden and explaining that a defendant opposing such testimony
had the burden of showing the testimony was based on novel
scientific evidence in order to proceed to a Frye hearing).
Commonwealth v. Cramer, 195 A.3d 594, 606-07 (Pa.Super. 2018).
In the matter sub judice, Appellant asserts Trooper Dodson’s analysis
and subsequent trial testimony that the fire was incendiary did not comport
with National Fire Protection Association Publication 921 (“NFPA 921”), the
-7-
J-S38037-20
scientific methodology deemed acceptable in the fire investigation community.
Brief for Appellant at 37. 6 Appellant explains that under this methodology,
an expert develops hypotheses through inductive reasoning and tests those
hypotheses through deductive reasoning in an effort to select a final
hypothesis. Id. at 36, 45. Appellant states Trooper Dodson assumed an
incendiary cause after improperly ruling out accident as a cause and cites to
what he claims to be numerous flaws and shortcomings in Trooper Dodson’s
analysis, despite her representation that she utilized a “scientific method.”
Id. at 37-45. Appellant concludes:
[T]his is not an issue of whether she used a “novel” scientific
method, but rather whether she applied the accepted scientific
methodology set forth in 921 in a conventional fashion in reaching
her conclusions. [Appellant] contends that she did not.
____________________________________________
6 The NFPA 921 is a guide for “scientific-based investigation and analysis of
fire and explosion incidents ... [and] the foremost guide for rendering accurate
opinions as to incident origin, cause, responsibility, and prevention.” NFPA
921 covers “[a]ll aspects of fire and explosion investigation ... from basic
methodology to collecting evidence to failure analysis. Guidelines apply to all
types of incidents from residential fires and motor vehicle fires to management
of complex investigations such as high-rise fires and industrial plant
explosions.” In addition NFPA 921’s stated purpose is “to assist individuals
who are charged with the responsibility of investigating and analyzing fire and
explosion incidents and rendering opinions as to the origin, cause,
responsibility, or prevention of such incidents, and the damage and injuries
which arise from such incidents.” NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion
Investigators, National Fire Protection Association,
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-
codes-and-standards?mode=code&code=921 (last visited Aug. 26, 2020).
-8-
J-S38037-20
[Appellant’s] Motion for a Frye Hearing was in essence a motion
in limine to exclude her testimony based upon Frye, supra.
On [sic] other words, she could say she used the
methodology used in section 921, but that doesn’t mean she
actually did. In Commonwealth’s logic, then, only if an expert
says they [sic] used a “novel” methodology, is a party allowed to
challenge the methodology used. In this case, Trooper Dodson
claimed to use the methodology outlined in NFPA 921, but clearly
she did not. This does not meet the point and rationale set forth
in Frye and Grady [v. Frito Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038 (Pa. 2003)]
which is the [c]ourt is a gatekeeper to insure that conclusions
reached by the experts is [are] within the methodology commonly
accepted within the fire investigation community.
Cleary, Trooper Dodson did not use that methodology in any
properly accepted fashion. Trooper Dodson jumped to the
conclusion that [Appellant] was present at the scene at the time
and near the point of origin, therefore, he must have started the
fire. However, in no way was the fire investigated conducted
properly using the scientific method. The conclusion of incendiary
was based on assumption and not on science. Thus, [Appellant’s]
Frye motion should have been granted.
Id. at 47-48 (emphasis in original). 7
____________________________________________
7 In 2014, Randy Watson, NFPA Chairman, clarified the acceptability of the
“process of elimination method” or “negative corpus” method stating:
That section [in Chapter 8] was titled “Inappropriate Use of
the Process of Elimination.” There was a lot of uproar because
people didn't understand the section. They felt we were saying the
process of elimination was a bad thing. That's not the case. What
we were trying to communicate was that if you misuse the process
of elimination, it could be bad. In the new edition, we added some
introductory language to address that the process of elimination
is an integral part of the scientific method. But if you're making a
determination for which you have no evidence to support, that's
not consistent with the scientific method. Whatever determination
you're going to make in regards to the cause of fire, you have to
have evidence to support it.
-9-
J-S38037-20
Prior to trial, the trial court heard argument on Appellant’s previously-
filed Motion for Frye Hearing. At that time, Appellant did not challenge
Trooper Dodson’s ability to testify as an expert, nor did he produce an expert
to challenge her methodology. To the contrary, Appellant disputed that he
bore the burden to show that she had applied a novel scientific method. See
N.T., 5/17/19, at 2. Appellant reasoned, as he does in his appellate brief, that
he bears no burden of proof. He argued Trooper Dodson improperly applied
the NFPA 921 standard in reaching her conclusions, and that, if a trial court
finds articulable grounds to believe an expert witness has not applied scientific
methodology, a Frye hearing is warranted. Id. at 4-6.
In response, the Commonwealth disagreed and explained that
Appellant’s arguments “contend that Trooper Dodson has committed an error
in applying the science, not that it’s a novel science. Committing errors in
doing your testing is tantamount to good cross examination, as the Court
noted, not a Frye hearing to prove that the science is still good.” Id. at 9-10.
Following argument, the learned trial court reached the following
conclusion:
Okay. In reviewing the filings and reviewing the arguments
this morning, the [c]ourt does not see any novel science in this
argument. I think, clearly, you’re arguing a mistake in application
of the science, which is clearly cross examination at trial.
____________________________________________
http:// www .nfpa. org /news-and-research/publications/ nfpa-jourrnal/ 2014
march-april-2014/pov/perspectives (last visited 8/25/20).
- 10 -
J-S38037-20
So the [c]ourt is going to find that there hasn’t been any
novel science presented to the [c]ourt which warrants a Frye
hearing. So the [c]ourt is going to dismiss your request for a Frye
hearing.
Clearly, this is a cross examination issue in front of this jury
for the expert when the expert testifies. You’re alleging mistakes
in the application of the science; you’re not alleging mistakes or
new novel science. So I think it’s clearly cross examination for
trial.
Id. at 13-14.
At trial, Appellant did not object to Trooper Dodson testifying as an
expert in fire investigations. N.T., Commencing 5/29/19, at 532. Trooper
Dodson testified she began her observations outside the home at 60 Oakwood
Drive in a clockwise motion. Id., at 538. She articulated what she found
there and proceeded to detail her discoveries upon entering the structure. Id.
at 538-42. She studied all the evidence, including surveillance video and
witness statements, from which she crafted a timeline of the events on the
evening of October 25, 2017, which began when Appellant appeared on the
home’s surveillance camera, continued to Erik’s 911 call, and ended when
neighbors reported the fire. Id. at 561-562. Based on the totality of this
information, Trooper Dodson opined that an open flame had been introduced
by a human hand to the curtains at the back of the home. Id. at 563-64.
Defense counsel conducted a lengthy cross-examination of Trooper
Dodson wherein he called into question the Trooper’s approach to her
investigation. Significantly, he made no specific mention of NFPA 921 in doing
so, nor did he attempt to show either that it is the only authority governing
an arson investigation or that Trooper Dodson had failed to investigate the
- 11 -
J-S38037-20
fire at 60 Oakwood Drive in compliance therewith. Id. at 568-619. Despite
Appellant’s statements to the contrary, Trooper Dodson explained that she
began with several hypotheses and eliminated them accordingly. She stated
she was “trained to have no expectation bias” and “gathered [her] data and
made [her] full conclusion.” Id. at 574, 592-93.
In Walsh, supra, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared the
following:
Whether we refer to the role of the trial court in a Frye
contest as that of a “gatekeeper” is not consequential. What is of
consequence is the role that the trial court plays during Frye
proceedings. A careful review of our prior Frye decisions makes
clear that it is the trial court’s proper function to ensure that the
expert has applied a generally accepted scientific methodology to
reach his or her scientific conclusions. To fulfill this function, the
trial court must be guided by scientists in the relevant field,
including the experts retained by the parties in the case and any
other evidence of general acceptance presented by the parties
(e.g., textbooks). Conversely, trial courts may not question the
merits of the expert’s scientific theories, techniques or
conclusions, and it is no part of the trial court’s function to assess
whether it considers those theories, techniques and/or
conclusions to be accurate or reliable based upon the available
facts and data. As is plainly set forth in Rule 702(c), the trial
court’s role is strictly limited to determining whether “the expert’s
methodology is generally accepted in the relevant field.” Pa.R.E.
702(c). The trial court may consider only whether the expert
applied methodologies generally accepted in the relevant field,
and may not go further to attempt to determine whether it agrees
with the expert’s application of those methodologies or whether
the expert’s conclusions have sufficient factual support. Those are
questions for the jury to decide.
Id. at *8 (footnote omitted).
Following a careful review of the certified record, we discern no abuse
of discretion on the part of the trial court in rejecting Appellant's motion for a
- 12 -
J-S38037-20
Frye hearing. In requesting the hearing, Appellant essentially asked the court
to usurp the jury’s role to question the merits of Trooper Dodson’s techniques
and conclusions. See, id.
Importantly, Appellant failed to make an initial showing that Trooper
Dodson’s expert testimony was based on novel scientific evidence or in
contravention to NFPA 921. Indeed, Trooper Dodson specifically testified that,
in addition to possessing extensive firsthand experience in fire investigations,
she had spent several days studying evidence in and around 60 Oakwood
Drive ruling out possible causes of the fire before ultimately determining it
had incendiary.
The certified record undercuts Appellant's allegations to the contrary
and demonstrates that Trooper Dodson’s expert testimony was not based on
novel scientific evidence. For example, Appellant had the opportunity at trial
to cross-examine her thoroughly as to any alleged error in her application of
accepted techniques in fire investigation. As a result, the trial court did not
have “articulable grounds” to believe that Trooper Dodson had failed to apply
an accepted scientific methodology in a conventional fashion in reaching her
conclusions. Thus, a Frye hearing was unwarranted, and the trial court
properly rejected Appellant's request for such hearing. Commonwealth v.
Cramer, 195 A.3d 594, 607 (Pa.Super. 2018).
Appellant next contends the Commonwealth presented insufficient
evidence “to sustain a verdict of guilty of each charge in each case.” Brief
- 13 -
J-S38037-20
for Appellant at 4. In his Concise Statement of Errors Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1925(b), Appellant similarly stated his intention to question on appeal
“[w]hether the[re] was insufficient evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty of
each charge in each case.” See [Appellant’s] Concise Statement of Errors
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1925(b), filed 12/2/19, at ¶7 (d).”
In its Opinion Pursuant to Rule 1925(a)(1), the trial court found
Appellant had waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because
his concise statement failed to specify the element(s) of the crimes(s) he
intended to challenge on appeal. Opinion Pursuant to Rule 1925(a)(1) at 7
(unnumbered). In the alternative, the trial court found that even if Appellant
properly had preserved this claim, it lacked merit. Id. at 8-10 (unnumbered).
Following our review, we conclude that Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence is waived because his Rule 1925(b) statement did not
adequately identify the errors that he intended to challenge on appeal.
It is well-established that any issue not raised in a Rule 1925(b)
statement will be deemed waived for appellate review. See Commonwealth
v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998). Further, an appellant’s concise
statement must identify the errors with sufficient specificity for the trial court
to identify and address the issues the appellant wishes to raise on appeal. See
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(ii) (requiring a Rule 1925(b) statement to “concisely
identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with
sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge”). This Court
- 14 -
J-S38037-20
explained in Riley v. Foley, 783 A.2d 807, 813 (Pa.Super. 2001), that
Pa.R.A.P. 1925 is a crucial component of the appellate process because it
allows the trial court to identify and focus on those issues the parties plan to
raise on appeal.
A Rule 1925(b) concise statement that is too vague can result in waiver
of issues on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686-
687 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“a concise statement which is too vague to allow the
court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no
concise statement at all”).
If Appellant wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was
insufficient, then the 1925(b) statement needs to specify the
element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient.
This Court can then analyze the element or elements on appeal.
[Where a] 1925(b) statement [ ] does not specify the allegedly
unproven elements[,] ... the sufficiency issue is waived [on
appeal].
Commonwealth v. Tyack, 128 A.3d 254, 260 (Pa.Super. 2015) (citation
omitted). “Even if the trial court correctly guesses the issues Appellant[ ]
raise[s] on appeal and writes an opinion pursuant to that supposition the
issues are still waived.” Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 400 (Pa.Super.
2004) (citation omitted, appeal denied, 584 Pa. 678, 880 A.2d 1239 (2005),
cert. denied, Spector, Gadon & Rosen, P.C. v. Kanter, 546 U.S. 1092, 126
S.Ct. 1048, 163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006).
Herein, Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement is a blanket statement
wherein he declares the evidence was insufficient to convict him of all charges.
- 15 -
J-S38037-20
However, the statement fails to specify the element or elements upon which
the evidence was allegedly insufficient to support Appellant’s convictions of
Second Degree Murder, First Degree Murder and Arson. This failure is
especially significant herein, where the crimes were comprised of multiple
elements and arose from two informations.
Thus, we conclude that Appellant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim is
waived on appeal. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 959 A.2d 1252, 1257-
1258 (Pa.Super. 2008).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/22/2020
- 16 -