Com. v. Lawyer, T. ( 2023 )

J-S21007-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TREVOR ALAN LAWYER :
:
Appellant : No. 1516 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 4, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-28-CR-0000773-2020
BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JUNE 11, 2023
Trevor Alan Lawyer appeals from the judgment of sentence of an
aggregate term of fifteen to thirty-six months of incarceration following his
convictions for obstructing administration of law and resisting arrest. We
affirm.
We glean the following factual background from the trial transcript. On
March 10, 2020, Pennsylvania State Police Troopers Kyler Hull and Tristen
Shoopack were dispatched to Appellant’s residence in response to a report of
a domestic altercation between Appellant and his partner, Jessica Schmidt.
The troopers encountered Ms. Schmidt at the end of Appellant’s half-mile-long
driveway and obtained her version of events. They advised her to stay there
while they went to the house to speak with Appellant, who had a visible injury
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S21007-23
from the altercation. Ms. Schmidt walked back to the residence and began
yelling at the troopers “as well as everyone who was in the residence,” and
the troopers took her into custody for assault. See N.T. Trial, 3/2/22, at 57.
Ms. Schmidt resisted arrest but was ultimately placed in the police vehicle.
When Appellant came out of the house during the process of getting her into
the car, the troopers advised Appellant to remain at the house and not
approach the vehicle, as they would be transporting Ms. Schmidt to the
Franklin County Jail.1
Since Ms. Schmidt continued to act unruly, the troopers stopped at the
end of the driveway to place restraints on her to prevent spitting and kicking.
Appellant drove his vehicle to their location and got out. Trooper Hull informed
Appellant what they were doing, directed Appellant to stay in his vehicle, and
got in the police vehicle to leave. Instead, Appellant approached the police
cruiser and opened the rear passenger door, which was unable to be opened
from the inside, to let Ms. Schmidt out. The troopers exited the vehicle and
informed Appellant he was under arrest. Appellant attempted to pull away
and continued to resist being handcuffed after being tackled, informing the
troopers that he was a state champion wrestler who was not going to be taken
into custody. Trooper Hull ultimately was required to hit Appellant with three
closed-fist strikes and two knee strikes to effectuate Appellant’s arrest.
____________________________________________
1 In a separate case, Ms. Schmidt entered a guilty plea to charges stemming
from the incident.
-2-
J-S21007-23
On March 2, 2022, a jury convicted Appellant of obstructing
administration of law and resisting arrest but found him not guilty of disorderly
conduct. Appellant was sentenced to the above-referenced term of
incarceration on May 4, 2022. After Appellant’s trial counsel withdrew, and
appointed counsel was given multiple extensions of time to file a post-
sentence motion, Appellant filed a motion stating two bases for
reconsideration of his sentence. The trial court denied the motion by order of
October 12, 2022.
This timely appeal followed. Appellant, after counsel obtained additional
time to do so, complied with the trial court’s order to file a concise statement
of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Therein,
Appellant contended, inter alia, that the trial court committed reversible error
for denying his “post-sentence motion for judgment of acquittal” based upon
the verdict not being supported by insufficient evidence and being against the
weight of the evidence. The trial court thereafter submitted a Pa.R.A.P.
1925(a) opinion observing that Appellant had raised no such claims in his
post-sentence motion but nonetheless addressing their substance.2
Appellant presents one issue for our review: “Did the trial court commit
reversible error when it denied [Appellant’s] post- sentence motion for a new
trial on the basis that the verdicts were against the weight of the evidence?”
Appellant’s brief at 4.
____________________________________________
2 We laud the trial court for addressing the claims to the best of its ability
despite its belief that they were not properly presented.
-3-
J-S21007-23
While Appellant’s stated question appears to focus solely on claiming
that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, his argument also
invokes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and, at times, conflates
the two. Our Supreme Court has explained the differences between the
distinct challenges to a verdict as follows:
A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a
question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the
verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime
charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a
reasonable doubt. Where the evidence offered to support the
verdict is in contradiction to the physical facts, in contravention to
human experience and the laws of nature, then the evidence is
insufficient as a matter of law. When reviewing a sufficiency claim
the court is required to view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit
of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
A motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict is
contrary to the weight of the evidence, concedes that there is
sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict. Thus, the trial court is
under no obligation to view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict winner. An allegation that the verdict is
against the weight of the evidence is addressed to the discretion
of the trial court. A new trial should not be granted because of a
mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same
facts would have arrived at a different conclusion. A trial judge
must do more than reassess the credibility of the witnesses and
allege that he would not have assented to the verdict if he were a
juror. Trial judges, in reviewing a claim that the verdict is against
the weight of the evidence do not sit as the thirteenth juror.
Rather, the role of the trial judge is to determine that
notwithstanding all the facts, certain facts are so clearly of greater
weight that to ignore them or to give them equal weight with all
the facts is to deny justice.
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 751–52 (Pa. 2000) (cleaned up).
For our part, this Court conducts the same de novo, plenary review of a
-4-
J-S21007-23
sufficiency claim, but reviews a trial court’s ruling on a weight claim for an
abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Rivera, 238 A.3d 482,
495 (Pa.Super. 2020).
Appellant, to the extent that he challenges evidentiary sufficiency,
identified neither in his Rule 1925(b) statement nor his brief which conviction
he assails or what elements of either were not proven. In his brief, he merely
notes the charges and the fact that the troopers testified at trial. See
Appellant’s brief at 8. Appellant quickly moves on to his weight argument,
asserting that “a review of all of the facts and evidence presented at trial show
unequivocally that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the
evidence.” Id. Specifically, Appellant suggests that his “testimony was
credible and unequivocal that the events testified [to] by Troopers Hull and
Shoopack did not take place in the manner that [the t]roopers testified they
did.” Id. at 9. Rather, as he and Ms. Schmidt testified, Appellant came to
the end of the driveway when Ms. Schmidt screamed for help and asked what
was going on, and, without notice, cause, or warning, the troopers threw him
to the ground and began punching him. See id. at 9-10 (citing Ms. Schmit’s
testimony, N.T. Trial, 3/2/22, at 166-83). See also N.T. Trial, 3/2/22, at
205-09 (Appellant’s testimony).
The trial court concluded that Appellant’s bald, general assertion in his
Rule 1925(b) statement that the trial evidence was insufficient was not a
-5-
J-S21007-23
properly-raised sufficiency claim.3 See Trial Court Opinion, 1/31/23, at 3. We
agree. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Arnold, 284 A.3d 1262, 1279
(Pa.Super. 2022) (“If an 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. . . . Where a 1925(b)
statement does not specify the allegedly unproven elements, the sufficiency
issue is waived on appeal.” (cleaned up)).
Regarding Appellant’s weight claim, the trial court and the
Commonwealth contend that claim was not preserved for appellate review
because it was not raised in an oral or written motion at any time prior to this
appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/31/23, at 5-6;4 Commonwealth’s brief at
4. Again, we agree. Appellant did not raise a weight claim before sentencing
and, despite being properly informed on the record of his post-sentence rights
and the grant of additional time for newly-appointed counsel to file a post-
sentence motion, a weight claim was not included therein with the sentencing
challenges. See N.T. Sentencing, 5/4/22, at 18-19; Order, 5/31/22 (granting
____________________________________________
3 The trial court nonetheless explained in its opinion why the evidence was
sufficient to sustain both convictions. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/31/23, at 3-
5. If waiver did not apply, we would reject Appellant’s sufficiency challenges
for the reasons stated by the trial court.
4 The trial court alternatively opined that the weight claim did not merit a new
trial because no particular facts were “so clearly of greater weight that in
ignoring them we deny justice to [Appellant].” Trial Court Opinion, 1/31/23,
at 7. We discern no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in
declining to give more weight to Appellant’s self-serving testimony than the
jury did.
-6-
J-S21007-23
extension of time to file post-sentence motion); Motion for Reconsideration of
Sentence, 6/20/22 (moving solely for sentencing relief).
Accordingly, Appellant’s weight claim is waived. See Pa.R.Crim.P.
607(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.”); Commonwealth v.
Juray, 275 A.3d 1037, 1047 (Pa.Super. 2022) (“An appellant’s failure to avail
himself of any of the prescribed methods for presenting a weight of the
evidence issue to the trial court constitutes waiver of that claim.” (cleaned
up)).
As Appellant failed to present any claim entitling him to relief, we affirm
his judgment of sentence.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 07/11/2023
-7-