Opinion
J-S46008-16 No. 2830 EDA 2015
08-12-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. JOSEPH JUDE CASINO, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 10, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-CR-0004985-2013 CP-46-CR-0006154-1991 CP-46-CR-0013261-2001 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and STRASSBURGER, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Joseph Jude Casino, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after he was convicted of burglary, possessing an instrument of crime, and resisting arrest in a case docketed by the trial court at CP-46-CR-0004985-2013. Based on Appellant's criminal charges in that case, he was also found in violation of the terms of parole/probation he was serving in two prior, unrelated cases docketed at CP-46-CR-0006154-1991 and CP-46-CR-0013261-2001. The trial court consolidated Appellant's three cases and sentenced/resentenced him on September 10, 2014, to an aggregate term of 6 to 12 years' incarceration. Appellant now raises six issues on appeal. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court concisely summarized the procedural history of Appellant's case in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, and we need not reiterate it for purposes of our decision herein. See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 11/5/15, at 8-17. Rather, we need only begin by setting forth the issues that Appellant raises on appeal:
1. The Commonwealth failed to produce sufficient evidence that [A]ppellant intended to commit the crimes of which he was convicted, and failed to produce sufficient evidence that the tools in his possession were instruments of crime.Appellant's Brief at 4.
2. The [trial court] erred by denying [A]ppellant's claim in his post-trial motion that the Commonwealth violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 573 by failing to produce photographic evidence until jury selection began.
3. The [trial court] erred by denying [A]ppellant's claim in his post-trial motion that the Commonwealth subjected him to incorrect identification procedures.
4. The [trial court] erred by imposing an unduly harsh, excessive and "faulty" sentence.
5. The [trial court] erred by denying [A]ppellant's motion for recusal prior to trial.
6. The [trial court] erred by finding that [A]ppellant received adequate notice of the terms of the sentences of probation imposed on him for the 1991 and 2001 cases.
Initially, this Court has declared:
"When briefing the various issues that have been preserved, it is an appellant's duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief must support the claims with pertinent discussion, with references to the record and with
citations to legal authorities." Commonwealth v. Hardy , 918 A.2d 766, 771 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 703, 940 A.2d 362 (2008) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Whitaker , 30 A.3d 1195, 1197 n. 7 (Pa. Super. 2011); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(b). We "will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant. Moreover, when defects in a brief impede our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues to be waived." Hardy , 918 A.2d at 771.In re R.D., 44 A.3d 657, 674 (Pa. Super. 2012).
Here, Appellant does not present any discussion regarding how or why the trial court erred by issuing the rulings he challenges in issues two, three, five, and six. Instead, he simply sets forth the procedural history and/or facts underlying each claim, and then cursorily concludes that he is entitled to some form of relief. See Appellant's Brief at 8-10 (setting forth issues 2 and 3); 11-13 (setting forth issues 5 and 6). Even more problematically, Appellant does not cite or discuss any pertinent legal authority to support his suggestions of error by the trial court. Consequently, we deem Appellant's second, third, fifth, and sixth claims waived for our review. See In re R.D., 44 A.3d at 674.
We also conclude that Appellant has waived his fourth issue, a discretionary aspects of sentencing claim, because he did not include a Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement in his brief, and the Commonwealth has objected to that omission. See Commonwealth's Brief at 25-26; Commonwealth v. Kiesel , 854 A.2d 530, 533 (Pa. Super. 2004) (holding that, where the appellee objects to a Rule 2119(f) omission, "this Court is precluded from reviewing the merits of the claim and the appeal must be denied") (citations omitted).
Nevertheless, even had Appellant preserved his issues two through six for our review, we would deem them meritless based on the analysis set forth by the Honorable Wendy Demchick-Alloy of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in her Rule 1925(a) opinion. See TCO at 8-17. Additionally, Judge Demchick-Alloy's opinion thoroughly assesses the only claim that Appellant has adequately briefed, and thus preserved, on appeal, i.e., his sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim (set forth in his first issue, above). See id. at 3-8. Consequently, we also adopt Judge Demchick-Alloy's decision as our own regarding that issue, as well, and affirm Appellant's judgment of sentence on the grounds set forth therein.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 8/12/2016
Image materials not available for display.